The online article revealed that LifeWay Christian Bookstores, bookstores overseen by trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing agency (LifeWay), pulled this month's Gospel Today magazine from its shelves. Gospel Today, published for nearly twenty years, is a conservative, evangelical magazine devoted to discussing current events and issues within evangelical Christianity. The magazine is the most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. What would cause LifeWay to pull the magazine from its shelves and treat it, according to Gospel Today's editor Teresa Haiston, "like it was pornography"?It seems this month's cover featured five women, dressed in black and smiling, whom the magazine's editors profiled as the most influential women pastors in America. A spokesman for Lifeway Resources, said the cover was not the reason the magazine was pulled from Lifeway's shelves. He gave the rationale for pulling it from Lifeway's shelves:
"The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say," Turner said. "It wasn't so much that there were women on the cover."
I don't know the spokesperson for LifeWay, and I'm sure he is a fine Christian gentleman. But his statement should send a chill up the spine of every Christian in the Southern Baptist Convention who loves our Convention and desires us to not act as if we are a cult. Now before my Baptist Identity friends burst a blood vessel, let me remind you that there is a difference between being a cult, and acting like we are a cult. We are not a cult, but sometimes we act like one. Let me show you what I mean.
(1). A cult has 'leaders' who determine what everybody else in the group can, and cannot read; what they can, and cannot do; what they can, and cannot think.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say" What? Surely, he can't be serious? Does he (or anybody who told him to say this) really believe that Southern Baptists are incapable of determining for ourselves what is truth? Do we need guardians of truth to protect our senstitive eyes and ears from possibly viewing things contrary to the truth? Who are these "buyers"? Who are these people concerned that Southern Baptists might "read" something that contradicts what we believe? Is it possible that the word "buyers" is in fact code for certain SBC leaders who called and complained? If so, just tell us. Then, we can make clear to those who desire to control what we read that Southern Baptists are mature, adult evangelicals who can think for themselves. We do not need leaders who act like cult leaders in an attempt to protect us.
(2). A cult is a place of pecular standards of "morality," where leaders are afraid that members will be "corrupted" by simply being "exposed" to the "immoral" through reading about them, or having unintentional contact with them, or heaven forbid, actually associating with them.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say."
Good night. Does anyone else so the absurdity of this statement? I take Newsweek, Time, USA Today, and other liberal weekly magazines and read them all from cover to cover. I remain a conservative, both political and religiously, not because I "shield" my eyes, but because of my convictions. Further, the idea that a conservative, evangelical magazine might actually say something about women pastors that will cause Southern Baptists to stumble morally if we were to read it is actually laughable. I personally AGREE with the BFM prohibition regarding women pastors, but we are acting like a "cult" if we think we need to shield ourselves (and others) from this "immorality." I am not even going to talk about the incredible illogic required to treat a gospel magazine as if it "were pornography."
Frankly, I wonder if those who made the decision to pull the magazine may somehow be related to those Southern Baptist IMB trustees who told me that blogging was like internet pornography. One of these days some of our well intentioned Southern Baptist leaders might actually understand the definition of pornography. The stupidity of comparing women who preach the gospel to those women who expose their bodies to the world (by hiding the magazine) will one day dawn upon us who are Southern Baptists.
(3). A cult takes an "us vs. them" mentality, and views everyone who is "not one of us" as the enemy.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say"
"They" say - "we" say. "They" believe - "we" believe. "They" - "we."
Sigh.
Come on folks. We who are Southern Baptists need to say "enough is enough."
We are not a cult, and we should not silently stand by while some SBC leaders give others in the Christian kingdom the impression that we are.
In His Grace,
Wade
215 comments:
1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»I knew a post was coming on this ridiculous action by LifeWay. I knew it was owned by Baptists but until now I had no idea it was owned by the Southern Baptist Convention. When I read that I was not surprised at all that they would pull a stunt like this. I guess is in the category of speaking in tongues, that is, the same as pornography. What a shame.
LifeWay bookstores are independently owned and operated by general managers, but are ultimately accountable to the board of trustees of LifeWay - simply because they carry the SBC agency name.
For example, the board of trustees of LifeWay recently demanded that the New York Times bestselling book "The Shack" be pulled from LifeWay shelves. Since the book is such a good seller, and because many managers of LifeWay bookstores opposed the action, a "doctrinal review" committee was established by the board of trustees which ultimately "cleared" The Shack of any doctrinal heresy.
The managers of LifeWay then gratefully restocked the book.
Blessings,
Wade
Thanks for the clarification:)
BTW I love the picture of you and your wife. It is really nice. God bless.
I would like to know who "the buyers" were who complained about the magazine.
That, to me, would be very, very revealing.
If someone knows Chris, this would be a great question to ask him.
The reason?
There are some "buyers" who have more influence than others, and the average Southern Baptist layman who reads the magazine would not be requesting LifeWay to pull it from their shelves.
But I can think of a few "buyers" who would demand it be removed - and they have a tad bit more "influence" in the SBC.
If I were in charge of a bookstore, I wouldn't promote and distribute literature I disagreed with. No one said people can't read it. They're saying we are not going to support it or distribute it. Good for Lifeway.
Wade,
Can you please tell me where you got that information about "the Shack" in regards to Lifeway?
Thanks in advance.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
William Paul Young's website - "The Shack"
"The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say," Turner said.
I agree it would be very helpful to know who "we" are! There are numerous books sold in Lifeway stores that contain theology that I believe are contrary to the basic believes of most Southern Baptist.
But I guess I am not an influential enough of a "we" to have them pulled from the store? I might just find out the next time I shop at Lifeway.
Mr. Masters,
Are you one of the "buyers" to whom I refer?
:)
Would you like LifeWay's phone number as well?
Just ribbing you.
Blessings,
Wade
Good point Clif.
I disagree. Lifeway exists for the purpose of providing Christian materials which they deem beneficial to the proclamation of the Gospel. The SBC believes the ordination of women is contrary to the mission of the Church as given by our Lord. Since they believe only males should be heads of the Church, it should not be surprising that they would not wish to promote and sell a magazine with a feature on the legitimacy of women heading churches. This is not "cultish." They are not saying that you cannot read the magazine, but they are saying that they will not propagate it. Lifeway is not a public library and has no obligation (nor should it) to provide materials promoting the entire spectrum of beliefs on any issue. Lifeway is in service to a confessional Church. I doubt anyone would be complaining about "cultish" activities if it were a magazine promoting the ordination of active homosexuals, which is very much a big issue in many churches (though I do recognize that these are separate issues).
"I agree it would be very helpful to know who "we" are! There are numerous books sold in Lifeway stores that contain theology that I believe are contrary to the basic believes of most Southern Baptist. "
Very true. My thoughts exactly.
I am going to go over tomorrow and ask for one. :o)
Strange how some SBC leaders can ignore or protect sexual predators or their coddlers that go from pulpit to pulpit but women pastors on the cover of a magazine will not be tolerated.
Lydia
Dear Wade,
Looks like the SBC leadership is trying to get in on the Holy Spirit's turf: they will now discern for the church. The Holy Spirit can take a vacation, while these gentlemen pass judgment on the writings and activities of Christians.
I'm a little worried about the qualifications of the leadership for the job. I thought the Holy Spirit was doing just fine. :)
Concerned Observor
From where I come from, the only people that ban or burn books have found something they're scared of talking about.
That cult thing about keeping members isolated from the "immoral" so that members remain uncontaminated:
Is this not the complete opposite of being an "evangelical"?
I thought Christians were supposed to go out into the world to love and serve the Lord. The world is full of very troubled sinners. Yep, they're contaminated all right. But I thought we were supposed to out among them and serve them.
Well, it's going to be a lot easier for Southern Baptists now. Won't have to worry about being 'contaminated'. Now everyone can relax and fellow-ship exclusively with the elect
This cult thing sounds like it has some real advantages for the fearful.
Wade,
I share your concern about the censorship of materials by Lifeway because some might find them contrary to the beliefs of the denominational powers that be.
At the same time, I suspect that Chris was merely repeating what he had been told to say by his superiors. I know Chris personally. He served with the IMB for a period of time as a news correspondent and his in-laws were career missionaries who served with us in Argentina. I can't speak for him obviously, but he is a person who has spent time on the mission field and I wouldn't want to blame him too quickly for being the spokesman for LifeWay on this issue. I suspect he was just following orders.
Can you imagine if the leadership forbids contact with the "immoral". Southern Baptists will have to out-source missionary work. This could save money.
I've been thinking about this for a few days.
Honestly, I think it is another case of us giving ourselves a black eye.
Wade or anyone,
I don’t believe I’d be high jacking Wade’s post in asking: “Would a committee be acting like a cult if they put in their bylaws what sex a pastor must be?”
We are a Baptist General Convention of Texas church which rejects the BFM 2000.
If the question arose, our present congregation would probably vote for a pastor to be male, but should we limit the Holy Spirit for future generations?
I relate to ‘Concerned Observer’ in saying. “I thought the Holy Spirit was doing just fine.”
Well..empty the Lifeway store of all books from Francis Schaeffer, James Kennedy, Max Lucado, Tedd Decker and all others who are un-Baptist.
Let's start applying the "guidelines" of PPL and scriptural baptism (including the authorized baptizer) to the authors to be sure they are pure enough.
By the time we are done one shelf per store ought to be enough. Then all we will have to choose from in the bookstores are Broadman Commentaries and books of sermons from the "Good 'O Boys Club".
All of this is silliness, but when are people going to get tired of the silliness and remove these trustees???
I look forward to being in the US this next summer. I plan to go the the Convention. Things have got to change.
Thanks Wade for all you have done for us at the IMB and for SB at large.
CJ overseas.
Hypocrisy reigns yet again. And people still support it yet again.
Ugh!
How about removing those books from people that stutter and stammer when asked if Jesus is the only way to heaven?
Billy Graham
Joel Osteen
etc...
How about the "name it and claim it" people or the "Word of Faith" people?
(List too long for this comment stream.)
I say we start a movement to having nothing but John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Charles Spurgeon, and John Piper on the Lifeway shelves.
If everyone would read only those people there may not be any "Southern Baptists" left, but our theology would be spot on!
Tis is sad that Paul's words to Timothy are distorted as such. The passage is about wives not mothering in discipleship over their husbands. Paul is saying that is your job as an elder. You can see the context right their. In pondering on Timothy and this issue of women, we also never have Paul telling Timothy, "by the way, go make and instituion and set it up for other elders to your work." Wade, seminaries have a place and they have been very valuable for missions but some of this distortion is because we have a bloated view about seminaries and how they are to equip elders.
Wade,
What this really reveals to me is the honest opinion of SBC leadership, as to the spiritual maturity and discernment of Southern Baptists. Perhaps it is, that they really prefer the spiritual equivalent of keeping the hoi polloi barefoot & pregnant....
Although my take on women pastors is different than your denomination's I do have a tremendous love and respect for your denomination. Sometimes it sure seems you shot yourselves in the foot though. I found interesting comments on what people posted on the Dallas Morning News Religion blog concerning this issue: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/southern-baptists-yank-magazin.html#comments
Ron
until they pull joel osteen from the shelves this is a major case of beam in the lifeway eye, while chasing the splinter in a theological debate.
John Daniels
On the other hand, a free copy of Thom Rainer's recent book "Essential Church" is available for download from LifeWay's website here: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/leadership/contestslw.asp.
We need balance. Teach people of all ages in churches or schools to identify the truth for themselves when a claim for it is made, and we won't have to worry as much about matters such as this (cf. Ken Hemphill's Life Questions for his "truth test"--very useful).
We're one day closer to the Lord Jesus' return--everyone get busy for Him this week!
David
I guess we should be thankful that women hymn writers were not all dropped from the new Baptist Hymnal, especially since the news release said "The teaching impact through singing our hymns cannot be overstated."
Women teaching through the hymns they wrote? Maybe they had a mental disconnect somewhere along the way, that they still included such as Fanny Crosby (mentioned in the news release). Probably better not tell them, or they will fall over themselves recalling the hymnals to pull all the women.
If you think women are less than human there's no telling where you might go with such a belief.
Susie
Suzie,
You make a brilliant point.
Gary Snowden,
Thank you for the comment and the spirit for which it is written. It was never my intention to embarrass the LifeWay spokesperson who spoke to the media to explain the decision to remove the magazine. Frankly, he is paid to speak for others, so I removed his name from my post as not to embarrass him further.
On the other hand, SBC staff must be aware that if they put themselves out there as supportive of the decisions of the "powers that be" (when, in fact, they may not be personally supportive), they run the risk of being seen as part of the problem - at whatever SBC agency in which this dilemma occurs.
Rex,
I believe a church could do whatever they choose regarding with their bylaws - they just wouldn't brand those who disagree as the enemy, wouldn't seek to stifle debate on the subject, and would be humble enough to admit they could be wrong.
Being cultic is not the same as having convictions. Being cultic is defined by what you think of, and how you treat, those who disagree.
Blessings,
wade
Wade,
How surprising that you and I substantially agree on the basic idea: It is unequivocally wrong-headed for LifeWay to have pulled the Gospel Today issue from the racks and hid it snugly away under the counter.
For my part, there is no substantial defense for this decision. If the magazine teaches error--and LifeWay's goal is to either purge error or protect from eror--then it's simply counter-productive to sell the magazine at all.
Why is it acceptable to sell error *under* the counter but not *off* the rack? Does LifeWay feel less guilt because they hide the erroneous volume? For my part, there's no reason why they should not feel more--passing out error "in secret."
In fact--though I am certainly not a lawyer--I'm not so sure, depending on the contractual agreement between vendors and LifeWay, that a vendor could not pursue some type of legal claim that, in this case, because egalitarianism is both a respectable and acceptable view in broader evangelicalism, LifeWay is liable for damages because they did not *reject" the magazine outright.
Instead, they both *intentionally* and *publicly* hindered its sale by putting it under the counter. Don't be surprised if Gospel Today has not already spoken to their legal counsel.
All of this aside, Wade, why you contaminate a perfectly legitimate complaint of action toward one of our affiliates by poisoning that rightful reservation with images of God-denying, soul-killing, Hell-inspired cults is a decision that surpasses Lifeway's goofy gaffe by a Georgia mile. Why associate Lifeway's mistake with cultism, Wade? Why?
Why not simply say their decision was wrong? I did; I am; I will. But to insult LifeWay by making them out to be *cult-like* stands as both the epitome of unfairness and smacks the goal of raw sensationalism right between the eyes.
Nor is it enough to dodge the bullet by stating the impotent disclaimer: "Now before my Baptist Identity friends burst a blood vessel, let me remind you that there is a difference between being a cult, and acting like we are a cult." Frankly, this has nothing to do with "Baptist Identity."
Even more, if I could pick 3 characteristics of my choosing, I'm confident I could make your church out to be "cult-like." It's easy make similarities like that happen.
Unfortunately, that's the nature of propaganda--exploiting similarities to the exclusion of differences in order to make a point (or vice versa)--which, as I see it, is precisely what you have done here, Wade.
I agree. LifeWay completely botched this decision. But your criticism is akin to the classic scenario where the cure is worse than the disease.
Incidentally, I am shocked that, somewhere in the thread, Paige Patterson's name did not show up as behind the entire, conspiratorial fiasco. Ah! But the thread is still young!
With that, I am...
Peter
I thought that we wanted Lifeway to be self-supporting (i.e. make money) so I'm with others who spoke about the charismatic material that is carried in every lifeway store (carefully noted as such on a special shelf) and some of the other Christian writers that are NOT Baptist, then it is sort of silly to remove a magazine.
I don't think it ever hurts us to share what other Baptists or denominations believe. The SBC does not have the ONLY access to truth. Truth is in Jesus Christ and His Word.
just a mom
Peter,
Thanks for your comment. If you can't see the difference between being a cult and acting like a cult, then it would seem to me I can't help you understand my post, so I'll not try.
Blessings,
Wade
Pete,
By looking at the number of comments on your blogpost which has been up for three days compared with this one that has been up for two hours it seems that not too many people care what you think about LifeWay's decision.
Having said that, I know the LifeWay spokesperson, and I am glad Wade removed his name from his well read blog.
Bill
Wade,
What would you recommend for a SBC spokesperson to do if he were placed in a position where he was told he had to say something - or do something - that violated his own personal convictions.
"For my part, there is no substantial defense for this decision. If the magazine teaches error--and LifeWay's goal is to either purge error or protect from eror--then it's simply counter-productive to sell the magazine at all."
But then you would have to purge Lifeway of a lot of it's merchandise if you take that view. Consider this, I think PDL is full of doctrinal error and is man centered. Others think it is the most wonderful thing to come down the pike. If I complain to Lifeway about selling PDL, they might be amused. But some important men somewhere decided that PDL is fine for Lifeway. How did they come to that conclusion? What is the process for such things?
Oh, let me be the first to mention Patterson. I am wondering how Lifeway can sell his books now knowing that he protected a sexual predator and even insulted the victims who came to him. What kind of people are we employing in the SBC?
Patterson's disdain for the victims of sexual molestation (Gaines protecting a pedophile minister, Gilyard and his victims) is more dangerous to little girls, little boys and young women than are these female pastors.
Lydia
Guys:
Lifeway was in tough spot on this one. Lifeway only exists to serve the convention by providing materials to the public, including Baptists and non-Baptists.
The people in the retail division at Lifeway are constantly challenged with whether to be a bookstore that sells anything spiritual to the public at large (with very little doctrinal filter on deciding what to put on the shelf) or to be a bookstore that reflects the denomination's convictions only. Those are the two ends of the spectrum.
Most of us feel that Lifeway should be somewhere in the middle. The question is, "Where is the middle."
Lifeway is in a constant struggle for survival in the Christian book world. Lifeway spends a lot of money selling theological books, both new and old, that do not make any money. They need to sell the current stuff, even if it is fluff (like Osteen) to keep the doors open.
Now add to this the fact that Wal-Mart, Target etc. sell books with no parameters, often at a loss, to grab the market.
This puts a great strain on the Christian book industry. I have known several people in that industry and it is a struggle in many regards.
Now, add to that the fact that there are Baptists of every stripe who have opinions. And because of our polity, they can come to an annual meeting, get to a mic and kick up a firestorm that no one even saw before the convention started.
Many of you may not know that the Lifeway leaders came under severe attack last year for the Shack book. They thought it would be a big deal at the Convention. Fortunately, because Lifeway reacted to its Baptist constituency swiftly and with appropriate deference, a big fight was avoided.
I personally fall along the lines of those who believe that Lifeway should be broader in its selling parameters. I would want us to position opposing books with those that we might find objectionable. So, if we are going to sell Osteen and Benny Hinn (sp?), put the books of those who disagree with the health, wealth, prosperity, healing - all the time, Gospel, next to books of authors who talk about suffering etc.
But remember. I am not the only guy with an opinion.
All it takes is for one guy to claim that Lifeway sells heresy. He can start a letter writing campaign, show up at the convention, and have just as many guys yelling at Lifeway for NOT pulling a magazine, as the other side can FOR pulling the magazine.
In this case, what Lifeway decided to do was sell the magazine, but not display this issue because of the cover story.
We may not agree with that decision, but we need to see it in context. I am certain that if it were up to the guys at Lifeway alone, they would have left things as they were and left the magazine prominently on the shelf. But they answer to a lot of constituencies, and they believed this was the best course to avoid a problem.
We may not agree with what they did. Fine. But let's please understand that these guys have a huge responsibility - to run a company successfully in a tough market. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. The theological publishing industry is at stake. And they have to do this in a tense denominational atmosphere.
These guys were probably at work until 10:00 p.m. every night over the last 2 weeks try to figure this thing out.
The rest of us were at home watching T.V., at the gym, whatever.
It would be good for all of us to look at all of these facts, I think.
Best to all.
Louis
I would say to any agency SBC employee that there comes a time when you either have to stand by your convictions and risk being fired for them. On the other hand, if someone stands by their convictions and are not fired, they have helped the SBC moderate in terms of our cooperation with other evangelicals and established another barrier against SBC isoltationalism.
In other words, its time that some SBC employees not fear those who threaten them with termination and do the right thing.
To all,
I have a funeral to conduct, and a board meeting to attend.
Please sign your comments.
Wade
Again the point on Timothy is missed, the earlier statement on "by the way send the men to an institution so that they can do what you Timothy were to do to men" is the point. At one time I thought Paige Patterson was to the business of streamlining the theology department was because of sexual predators in the churches and mission field (see sites like takecourage.com for more information). He confronted the issue of Bill Clinton's removal becasue of his own misconduct and this NEEDS to reminded to your bloggers in this dialogue. From a real good source, he has been threated twice on his life as well. What I don't get is the element of Klouda and her husband's disability which is counter intutitive from former actions. They broke trust and confidence and did "not bear the burden" of Klouda's family financial problems. The SBC stance on women is obscure but by the letter of Timothy but clearly it is not demanding women to be wifes and mothers. This whole issue is do to existing structures that are more college-like then mentoring. Jay Adams, who is often mischaracterized, in his book on seminary education stated that their were no grades given in seminaries prior to the 1900's. Grades are not really accountablity they only test proficiency. If we are going to be fundamental then everything then shuld be under scrutiny and even rethink the seminary system. Personally from review of Scripture, I think that the church that sponsors the student seminarian has the primary supervisory role. The sitng back and saying, "oh I don't think its wrong for a woman to be" or "women are the cause of liberalism in our seminaries and churches" misses the point entirely. For a woman to be elder is the men's shame not hers for she is better equipped then any male.
Brent Hobbs said...
If I were in charge of a bookstore, I wouldn't promote and distribute literature I disagreed with. No one said people can't read it. They're saying we are not going to support it or distribute it. Good for Lifeway.
Good for you that you would stick by your convictions, but this isn't what Lifeway is doing. They are still selling the issue, just not displaying it on the shelves. I suspect that those who pushed this decision would just as soon not sell this issue at all, but that might become a legal matter unless they stopped selling the magazine altogether. But that might cut into profits, as Gospel Today is, according to the Fox new article, "the most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country."
This was a ridiculous move, unless Lifeway is prepared to stop selling all materials with which some (or even most) Southern Baptists would disagree -- or at least put them in plain brown wrappers beneath the counter and sell them by request only.
In addition to Gospel Today, Lifeway sells may other Christian magazines, including Christianity Today. (At least where I live -- I just called both of the Lifeway stores in my local area and they told me they do.) And as I recall, Christianity Today has done more than one article on the issue of women pastors, and they did not all represent the official SBC position on the issue. Why weren't those issues put under the counter? No smiling women pastors on the cover, perhaps?
As Wade has demonstrated, this isn't about whether or not one supports having women as pastors. It is about power, control, and cult-like behaviors.
Christianity Today has problem with not always painting an accurate picture though. Awhile back they put out Hannagraaf's salary and the money issues when he was in California. They said his house was priced just over $250,000 dollar. But if you think about it this would probably be a $80,000 home in the rest of the country.
Gary Snowden,
“I know Chris personally… he is a person who has spent time on the mission field and I wouldn't want to blame him too quickly…”
I know this is a little off topic brother Gary… and I hope you understand that I am not picking on you when I say this… But your comments bring up something that has been bothering me for quite some time now.
Some in the SBC act as if anyone “who has spent time on the mission field” (outside of the USA) as if they are superior to all others who have not spent time on the mission field outside of the USA. Your statement clearly shows this attitude of treating our missionaries as if they were spiritually more mature and worthy of more respect than others. I know that was not your intent… but that is what is says.
Perhaps our lifelong missionaries do disserve more respect than the Bi-vocation minister that has worked two, sometimes three, jobs for 40 years all so that he can bring the Gospel to a congregation of 40 out in the sticks? But this treating of our missionaries as returning War Hero’s… and seeing some in the SBC seeking short term missionary appointments as a way to build their Resume` and advance their carrier in the SBC is quite disturbing to me.
Just thought I would bring this to your attention… Now I will set back and enjoy being pummeled for daring to speak these blasphemous thoughts out loud.
Grace Always,
Regardless of where we labor or what our station is in this life,--when our service is biblical and genuine (because it could be otherwise) then there is indeed no room for any attitude of superiority. I vacuum the sanctuary and clean the restrooms for our local fellowship each week. So when I’m wearing my rubber gloves and using the scrub brush, cleaning substances that I dare not mention, I thank Him for the opportunity to serve.
I give kudos to any and every who toil for our Lord. And perish the thought, but if anyone does hope to pad their resume by getting involved in missions…then they have received their reward already.
And I agree, that it wasn’t brother Gary’s intent at all and it didn't come across that way to me.
Louis,
You said ... But they answer to a lot of constituencies, and they believed this was the best course to avoid a problem. ...
The real issue to me is exactly WHO thought displaying the magazine was a problem. Obviously someone with great influence that could convince Rainer (whom I like, by the way) to convince the store managers to do this. Or maybe Rainer was blindsided; I don't know.
It's the inconsistent influence peddling that's so bothersome. This was NOT an economic business decision. It was a power play.
For consistency, just quit selling Gospel Today forever. That one cover should poison the well, eh?
Wade,
If you can show where, in my comment, I fudged the distinction, sir, I'd be happy to correct it. I consistently employed *cult-like*. But thanks for the non-answer anyway.
William,
So let me get this straight: many comments means much significance, few comments means no significance.
Bravo!, my dear brother. A thousand cans of olive oil as your deserved reward. Your stellar, razor-sharp logic just sliced the meaning right out from under my entire reason for existence!
Actually, William, I did not log on to entertain juvenile insults. So, if you'd like to make a constructive criticism about what I wrote, I'd be open to correction. If not, consider this my formal good-bye to you. Grace...
Lydia,
I think you're confusing the quote by me with my personal position. Perhaps a re-read is in order...
As for your slanderous remark concerning Dr. Patterson, I am afraid you'll be the one to be judged for that...
With that, I am...
Peter
Susie,
Great thoughts about the hymns. Be careful what you say, though. We may end up with 2 versions, the "male-written-only" version and the original with warning stickers: "WARNING: Contains hymns written by Fanny Crosby and Anne Steel."
I prefer the Trinity Hymnal anyway. :)
Louis,
I haven't a clue who you are. Yet, I must say your comment is, by a Georgia mile, the most sober, balanced perspective thus far on this thread. Indeed, it may be the most favorable on the net that I have read.
If you could, drop me a line. I'd like to ask you a question.
With that, I am...
Peter
peterlumpkins@gmail.com
Dear Wade,
Thank you for saying: "it's time that some SBC employees not fear those who threaten them with termination and do the right thing."
That is probably the ONLY way that the bullying behavior will cease.
This reminds me of the story of Denmark during WWII. The Nazis invaded, conquered the country militarily, and ordered all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David armband. The next day, the king of Denmark appeared wearing a Star of David armband. By the end of the next day, the entire Danish population was wearing a yellow Star of David, also.
The King took the power away from the bullies by "doing the right thing". The King could have been shot immediately. But he did "the right thing." He was a REAL Christian, and innocents were protected.
When the people stand TOGETHER against bullies, the power of these bullies to cause harm fades quickly.
There are other examples of courage that are endless; but the common denominator is always to
"not fear" and to "do the right think".
Proud of you, Wade, I think you would have made a great protector of the Jews in Denmark in those days.
In the current situation, you can speak with moral authority because you have already proven that you are, in the words of the Jews,
" a righteous person" , one who does good in spite of what it will cost personally. God bless you and keep you, sir. I think you are an honorable man.
Prayers,
L's Gran
"I think you're confusing the quote by me with my personal position. Perhaps a re-read is in order...
As for your slanderous remark concerning Dr. Patterson, I am afraid you'll be the one to be judged for that..."
Peter, I must say, I would be completely disappointed if you did not come back with one of your famous snarky, arrogant comments.
Slander? What I said is NOT a lie, it is FACT. Has Patterson had Gaines into preach at SWBTS chapel? Did Gaines have a confessed pedophile minister on staff for 6 months before the public found out. The answer is YES. Did Patterson publicly rebuke Gaines for ignoring 1 Tim 3? No. Instead, he makes it publicly known he supports Gaines. Hmmm.
Does Patterson dumb down 1 Timothy 3 for people he likes such as Gaines and Gilyard? So, he is kind of choosy about what scriptures he seriously upholds, isn't he.
So, Patterson obviously has no problem with pastors who protect pedophiles on staff. But Dr. Klouda was in grave sin for teaching Hebrew to make students. Uh huh.
And of course, we all know about Patterson and Gilyard and Patterson's treatment of the victims. But of course, you don't believe 25 victims. And of course, we can ignore Vines preaching at Gilyard's church not too long ago.
Peter, you are buying into cult-like thinking.
Lydia
My Dear Lydia,
Why of course I am. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
Do you notice that most people do not care to have a conversation with you? You always come across as there is something wrong with them. Have you ever thought for even one second the problem lies with your smart aleck remarks and your sign off? Please think about it.
Gospel Today is going to sell out! They are going to do exactly what they were trying to avoid. The irony is delicious.
Tom,
For the record, I do not question the reasons why some care not to respond to something I may post anymore than I give a second thought about wondering if others are curious why I do not respond to their posts. Such stale existence must be the least of all God's little animals.
Nor am I complaining about such or ever have, to my recall.
I do wonder, however, why others get personal rather than simply show the flawed position of another. I have an idea but I'll keep it to myself--if you don't mind.
I hope you have a very nice day yourself.
With that, I am...
Peter
Wade, in a comment: I would like to know who "the buyers" were who complained about the magazine.
Exactly! And why did they buy the magazine with that cover? Is Gospel Today is being used as a textbook in some class?
Or maybe they didn't actually buy the magazine, but they read the article. Surely not. That would be stealing, wouldn't it?
But this issue, too, falls under Psalm 11. "In the Lord, I take refuge." Not to hide my head and have a "whatever" attitude, but to remind myself that my faithfulness is not protected by Lifeway or the SBC or any one person.
Peter:
You wrote--"Such stale existence must be the least of all God's little animals." Care to explain?
Dear Peter,
You bear the name of Jesus' choseN follower, St. Peter. Of course, you realize the responsibility in bearing this name.
Simon Peter was a fisherman and Jesus made him a fisher of men.
Peter was a humble man. When Peter was crucified, he requested to be crucified upside down, because he did not feel worthy of dying in the same manner as his Lord Jesus.
Think of the great heritage your name carries. When you sign your name, remember the one that Jesus called and re-named 'Peter' because of his faith.
CONCERNED OBSERVOR
Interesting that Lifeway considers a magazine with female pastors more "dangerous" to the faith than books by Pat Robertson (who encourages the murder of foreign leaders), John Hagee (who believes the Jews don't need the Gospel), and T.D. Jakes (who isn't a trinitarian).
B Nettles,
You asked WHO had a problem. I for one have a problem but the messengers who voted to change the BFM are the ones who had the problem. The issue is promoting women pastors.
Dont like the position in the BFM ?
Some other names that have written on this issue Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, Dennis Rainey , Russell Moore, Denny Burk, et al.
BTW Iam no one with any authority but you can run me through with a sword before I will agree that women pastors should ever be allowed in any Bible believing church.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Wade Burleson,
Can you please give me a direct link to your information regarding the Shack. I have searched the forums but no one seems to use names unlike those who speak out against women pastors. Even Paul Young called it a council of theologians and experts. Who were those experts?
Btw I believe you are a hypocrite Wade for challenging SBC leadership but not other christian leaders regarding the issue of sexual predators. You might want to ask why Paul Young's father was asked to leave the mission field. Might want to start with the CMA in Colorado Springs.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Wade, while I am not an advocate of censorship; nevertheless, this is not an unprecedented move and as the thread has indicated it did not completely remove the piece in question. Remember one of the cries for the Southern Baptist reformation--I did not coin this phrase--was the Message of Genesis written by Ralph Elliott which was completely buried. I wonder Wade, is your reaction to LifeWay's actions based on the ad hominem appraisal made by the magazine's editor [and why wouldn’t they try to defend their magazine, though erroneously done IMO]? Would you have written so vociferously if the magazine editor had not sensationalized this with a link to pornography as opposed to doctrinal standards? Also, I question whether your main points could be substantiated as biblical principles via 2 John and Jude. The truth is that we are all cult like. It is just a question of how stringent we apply our standards. For example, your premise one is weakened as your church practices church discipline. Your second premise is weakened by 2 John 11. Your final premise, resting on the authority of the first two, is weakened by much of the New Testament and how it refers to false teachers. There is clearly an “us” vs “them” mentality present in the NT. So, I would say that the approach to engaging the issue is via reasoned discourse and not sensationalized attacks. Glad for your return.
On second thought, this whole affair sounds familiar. Isn't it a lot like Dwight McKissic's message, preached at the SWBTS Chapel service? In that case, they took it out of the accessible archives so you could no longer view it online, but would sell you the DVD!
That might even be related to SBC's stance on women teaching men, all the while earning quite a bit of money via the person of Beth Moore and her works.
Hmmm....
Bill you have great insight...most heresy in the culture is promoted by males like Copeland and the such. Guys there is way too much cicular logic going on here. A statement that was said earlier shuld be considered. Should not everything in the seminary system be questioned and reevaluated under Grace and by the Scriptures? I heard someone complaining the other day saying that the catalogue requires every theology student to have a laptop. I know this is not hard pressed to be fulfilled but I thought the minister came to be equipped not have the equipment in the first place.
I've been trying to work this out in my own mind. In a perfect strict complementarian world, no Christian man's mind would ever hold a theological thought or principal that originated in the mind of a woman.
Hello, Wade,
Methinks the SBC is leaving you--very similar to how it left lots and lots of us back in the 80s and 90s. Paint me a free and faithful Baptist, saved by God's marvelous grace.
Florence in KY
Wade:
From the about lifeway page:
Established in Nashville, Tenn., in 1891, LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention is one of the world’s largest providers of Christian products and services, including Bibles, church literature, books, music, audio and video recordings, church supplies, and Internet services through LifeWay.com. The company also owns and operates 148 LifeWay Christian Stores across the nation, as well as two of the largest Christian conference centers in the country.
Through its publishing division, B&H Publishing Group, LifeWay has produced one of the most accurate and readable Bible translations ever - the Holman Christian Standard Bible. LifeWay is a religious nonprofit organization that receives no funding from the denomination and reinvests income above operating expenses in mission work and other ministries around the world.
That is to say:
1. All stores are company owned.
2. LifeWay is a denominational non-profit that is self-funding (and palways has been under the LifeWay brand and also was during the vast majority of its years as the Sunday School Board). Income that exceeds expenses is reinvested "into mission work and other ministries around the world."
The first is a correction to your statement. The second is a response to an earlier commenter about LifeWay being self-funded.
Greg Harvey
P.S. Peter: Wade's point is that LifeWay has been the focus of fighting over denominational control of message and theology/doctrine/practice. If you take that fight over control to an extreme--as Southern Baptists have been guilty of at times and as exemplified in this situation--you look weird, cultic, and are poor representatives of the Kingdom of which we are supposed to be royal ambassadors (both small r.a. and big R.A. in my case).
That isn't our goal, it's not our job, and it isn't our problem to maintain that kind of control. Synergy and consistency? Yes!
Control? No.
Making ourselves a "peculiar people" in every sense except reflecting Jesus Christ's Lordship in our live? Never.
Living our lives so people see the difference Jesus makes and don't get distracted by our self-indulgence? Priceless.
Robert Masters:
You wrote--"BTW Iam no one with any authority but you can run me through with a sword before I will agree that women pastors should ever be allowed in any Bible believing church." Your statement sounds kinda cultic to me.
How did this leadership come to power? Was it a part of that hostile take-over that used such un-Christian and un-American methods?
And now, how blindly do the average Southern Baptist people follow the leadership?
It is easy from this blog to figure out who has already "drunk the kool-aid", but what about the majority of the Southern Baptist people?
Even the leadership can agree with this: the ends appear to justify the means as long as the leadership maintains control.
CONCERNED OBSERVOR
Warning: written by a woman. Males read at your own risk. ;-)
Bill, That's the answer. Explain it as they will, if men think women are less than human in any way they are drawing a line in the sand on a beach at low tide. Then they pick and choose where they will draw the line using logic available to them and those who listen to them.
Are they in trouble if they don't know where the idea originated?
Can women teach men? If no, what about little boys - at what age are they no longer to be taught by women? Could it be that they let them teach the little ones because they don't want to change diapers.
If women are never to have authority over men then what about mothers and their sons? Do little boys no longer need to obey their mothers? Or is there a certain age when this changes? Teenage boys don't want to listen to anyone; is this idea an encouragement in their attitude? Can a mother teach her son anything?
Do hymns teach theology? Then you'd better stop singing the ones written by women. Goodbye, Fanny Crosby.
The complementarians are divided about Sarah Palin's candidacy. Many like her politics but then must make convoluted arguments about whether a woman can serve as Vice-President (potential President)but not lead a church or family.
These people are just following the example of the disciples who didn't believe the women Jesus sent to tell them of His resurrection.
Maybe that's why men have a reputation for not wanting to stop and ask directions - they are afraid of getting an answer from a woman.
Susie
Yea Bill, another great point. Ever read about Harry Fosdick and the liberal uprising in Prysbeterian circles. He bought into Darwinism and liberal progressivism and then ran off people like J. Grishem Machen who would not give in. True liberalism is actually billigerent and legalistic. The conservatives in the SBC leadership is totally triangulated in their dealing with liberalism and stuck applying some sort of biblical constructionism in order to deal with it. they need to back to grace and work from there. If they have desired to be principled with the women in the theology department then don't hire anymore women but honor your word to. Totally triangulated.....
Tom Parker,
I think ML answered your question!
God Bless
Robert i Masters
What, my wife wishes I 'd quit asking for directions and keep the idea of where I'm going in mind.
I saw the news of this over the weekend and the thought that stuck in my mind was "The cycle of self-destruction within the SBC continues with another step towards irrelevance."
Hi Susie,
Isn't it interesting that Jesus appeared first to a woman, Mary of Magdala? And then He gave her the great honor of being the messenger of tell the men of the Resurrection.
In doing these things, He honored a woman and gave her a great task to deliver information to male followers. What does this say to us about HIS opinion of the value of women in the Church.
There is a lesson here that sets a precedence for the position of women in the Church.
Greg,
I am confused as to your 'p.s' comment addressed to me. Given what I have written thus far, I cannot discern your point. Nor am I aware I missed Wade's point.
With that, I am...
Peter
The precedent set by Jesus sending Mary of Magdala to be the first to tell the wonderful news of the resurrection seems honored more through history by the example of the disciples who didn't believe her than by the example of Jesus sending a woman to proclaim the Good News.
Susie
Wade, et.al.:
It is simply "CULT" spelled "FUNDAMENTALISM."
Doug
Peter:
Can you not find a more humble sign off than ( I am )? I only know one I am and you are not it.
Here is my issue with this. I find it hard to believe that this magazine is the only item in all of Lifeway stores that says something we would not say.
This seems to scream hypocrisy to me. If Lifeway wants to pull a magazine for whatever reason then they have the right to do so. That is part being in business. I would only ask that there be consistency in the actions they take.
Hi Susie,
You're right. My thought is that Jesus may have been teaching by his example here. It's understandable, from their cultural devaluation of women, that the disciples would not have wanted HER to be the messenger.
But what of today. We acknowledge that Jesus acted as He did in choosing Mary of Magdala to speak to the men. How,now, knowing that Jesus has set this precedent, can MEN still ignore His actions?
Not too long ago, I am aware that the Southern Baptist faith was based on the words AND ACTIONS of the Lord Jesus. All that has changed now. I'm sorry for it. The leadership may devalue women now; but we know that Christ did not.
Greg W. H.:
Thanks for straightening out the Lifeway store ownership issue.
The stores are not independently owned.
Louis
Doug,
Spoken as a true Wade-ist.
Wade-ist : a member of the cult of Wade Burleson.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
B Nettles:
I have never worked at a high level in the retail industry. I doubt that anyone commenting here has either. I did sack groceries as my first job, but that's the extent of my retail expereince.
I have represented major retail chains, but in liability matters only. Not at all on the business side of what to stock, where etc.
These decisions, from what I have observed are complicated. First, because there are a lot of pieces coming in etc. Second, from a timing standpoint. Third, logistics.
I mention all that to say that I sincerely doubt that the "usual suspects" of the people commenting here had anything to do with this. I am not a big believer in conspiracies - like Dr. P or others are going over book lists at Lifeway, and getting advance notice of what's coming up in all of the magazine covers or all of the articles so that they can flag the bad stuff.
This probably bubbled up from the people inside Lifeway who saw this, sent a question up the chain within the corporation etc. I have no reason to believe that it's nothing but an in-house decision.
That, in my opinion, is the answer to the "Who" in your question.
It was probably a committee, with some voting one way and others thinking the other way would be best. I have no idea that even Dr. Rainer would ever get involved in something like this, but he may have.
But I have to admit it is more fun to imagine some really mean fundamentalist types with a red phone to Dr. Rainer's office. They get advance notice of every page of every book, magazine, periodical, Precious Moments figurines, candle etc. that is placed in a Lifeway store. They then have a secret council meeting and vote. Those who dissent are executed after the meeting and replaced with conformists. This star chamber then calls Dr. Rainer and gives him the list of banned books.
That's a lot cooler story.
If that is happening, I want to know how in the world all those Beth Moore books are in Lifeway! She is flat out dangerous!!
I did note Wade's comment about denominational employees standing up for their convictions etc.
My take on this is that if your employer tells you to ignore stealing, to steal, engage in immoral behavior etc., then by all means, stand up.
On the other hand, if people who are charged to make policies make a policy that you, as an employee, do not agree with, then you can appeal to your employer and try to get them to change that policy, or you could decide to work under that policy even though you disagree with it and you leave the responsibility for making a bad policy up to those who made it, or you can leave.
But I really believe it is unwise and immature for employees who don't make policy to adopt sort of a civil disobedience stance forcing their own termination or their employers to change.
Everyone in an organization doesn't get to make policy. That's leadership by who is willing to complain the loudest.
I realize that this has some appeal to many, especially in light of recent developments in the SBC.
I would counsel against it, however, and think that the wiser course is for each person to do his/her job in the area of their given responsibility.
If one aspires to leadership to become a policy maker - then campaign for that position on principle. If you are persuasive enough then you will get to be a policy maker.
I certainly admire anyone who says openly that given a policy that they can no longer work for their employer. That is principled.
But misunderstanding one's role in an organization and picking fights over policies is not a wise course.
I am glad that most SBC employees understand this. I think we all would if we thought about it more carefully.
Louis
Robert Masters:
What cult do you belong to? What--ist are you.
hey, how 'bout them Cowboys!!?
This is almost the final straw. This, added to Richard Land's self-appointed spokesman title, is an embarrassment to me. What is next? Taking note of the amount of makeup and jewelry worn by Baptist women? Incredible. Wade, the time is way past for reasonable Southern Baptists to look for a way out.
"Since the book is such a good seller, and because many managers of LifeWay bookstores opposed the action, a "doctrinal review" committee was established by the board of trustees which ultimately "cleared" The Shack of any doctrinal heresy."
Either the committee never read the book, or the committee never read The Book.
Mr. Moderator,
Please let the LifeWay Bot's use the BF&M2k as their minimum guideline for doctrinal matters. The SBC has overwhelmingly confirmed our position regarding women as pastors. As such, our entities have every right to hold to this position by whatever means whether it is though pro-male headship materials, or by censoring pro-female headship materials.
viva la LifeWay!
Now they can pull the crap by Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, et al
Kevin M Crowder,
Iam totally baffled by Lifeways decision on the Shack. I spoke with an elder in my church who is a senior executive at Lifeway and his answer was even more scripted. Same talking points as the website. What I want to know is what my local church is going to do about what that elder is promoting. I know they will say it is at work and not at the church but seems like that autonomy is not a Biblical one.Seems like it is a place where church discipline should apply.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Robert Masters:
Are you saying you want your church to discipline one of your elders over a book? What does he need to do to avoid such discipline?
Stephen:
The way out? Please, you and Wade don't go? What will we all do here?
But if you must - I have thought of a name for the new group:
"The Reasonable/Non-Tertiary Doctrine Dividers Baptists of Texas and Oklahoma."
Instead of being like the CBF, which has absolutley no doctrinal standards, your group can do something different the exact opposite - incorporate every doctrinal statement you can think of into one long document.
Just redact the tertiary parts.
Wade could be the first leader, though I think you had better come up with a better title than "President" (SBC) or "Moderator" (CBF) (on a side note, can't the CBF come up with some title or something that doesn't sound wishy-washy?) I don't have suggestions for that, but I bet Ben Cole does. Ben is really into politics and probably would enjoy the founding father type feeling that would come with this project.
Here are some other things that you guys could do.
1. Every member of any church joining the new group gets his/her own blog - hosted by headquarters.
2. Every adult member of any member church can apply for a pastoral approval and title designation from a central office in either Tulsa or Waco. (I know there can be some rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma, so you guys will have to fight that one out).
3. The first agency will be a sexual predator registry started at the headquarters.
4. Any employee of the new group gets to dissent from any policy adopted and may threaten to quit at noon each day.
5. No women will ever be employed in any leadership post at the headquarters, but the concept of having a woman leader will be a very important value.
6. An annual meeting will be held, but all business will be conducted in a prayer language. 95% of those attending will believe it could be a prayer language, but only 5% will know for sure, and they will get to prepare the minutes and count the votes.
Just having some fun.
Louis
Tom Parker,
Yes that is what Iam saying. Stop selling the book at Lifeway or at least distance himself from the book. In fact he indicated to me that Lifeway would continue to sell that book. I wont judge his motives but I believe that Christians should really have only one Soveriegn and that is Christ. Tim Challies has I believe the best review here http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Louis:
Note that the page itself uses the term denomination. I thought that was cruel irony for the Baptist Identity folks. ;)
Greg Harvey
Louis, I do have a sense of humor, and your post is hilarious!!
Stephen:
Thanks!
By the way, I was wondering to all of the women out there who want there to be women pastors - do you guys like and respect Beth Moore?
Or is she, to you, like Sarah Palin is to some feminists? Just wondering. This is a serious question. I would like to hear your imput.
Rob:
Aren't you assuming that the one executive makes the ultimate decision about the Shack? If he doesn't make the decision, but has to live with it as an employee, what can he do, but lauch a protest, the type of which I have already blogged about?
Doesn't Lifeway have a board of trustees? What if the Board backs the decision? The Board is completely aware of this matter (it's been going on for several months). Should all of the executives at Lifeway be disciplined, or should the entire board of trustees face discipline?
What do you recommend as discipline? A stearn talking to? Removing them as an elder? Kicking them out of the church?
Louis
"By the way, I was wondering to all of the women out there who want there to be women pastors - do you guys like and respect Beth Moore?"
I personally do not. I think she is fluffy and doctrinally shallow. I think she has become a 'brand' in Christian marketing. I am not a big fan of 'fill in the blank' bible studies, either. And the questions at the end of her chapters are not worthy of a 10 year old.
And no, I am not going to give examples. Louis asked for an opinion and I have one. :o) And I do not feel like digging out her stuff and giving examples. :o)
Mrs. Moore will tell you she is a comp who does NOT teach men. How does she get by with it in the SBC? Same way Mrs. Criswell did. Rationalization. There are always exceptions to comp rules, one finds out, if you have been around long enough. :o)
Lydia
Louis,
The situation you describe is different then what Iam talking about here. The executive was not at all against the book. I think you could fairly say that he was chastizing me for speaking out against it. When I attempted to explain other details regarding the context of Paul Youngs life and family he told me he did not want to hear those details.
BTW..a perusal of no less then 10 websites/ blogs of church members indicates the popularity if this book.
The elder as defined by Scripture must be able to teach correct doctrine. This is not correct doctrine..in fact it is true heresy. So I would argue that he should no longer be an elder.
Iam not a book burner/banner...but when Lifeway says they carry only Christian books then I dont think this qualifies in any manner.
Would you please direct my to this board listing(or council as Paul Young calls it ). Please see this talk at Mariners church. The Southern Baptist part starts at 3:16.
http://www.marinerschurch.org/theshack/av/wed-video.html
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
wait....is "the shack" doctrinally unsound?
Greg Alford,
Your gentle chastisement is dutifully noted and accepted. I have to confess that I struggled with that very idea as I wrote the comment above, for it does seem to place missionaries on pedestals and thus excuse their behavior or judgment on other matters such as the issue at hand.
On more than one occasion I felt uncomfortable on furlough with what seemed to me to be excessive idolizing of missionaries as "super saints." The reality is that we all have feet of clay.
I didn't want to give the Lifeway spokesman a pass just because he once served as a missionary, but I do know him personally and know his in-laws very well and have been impressed by his walk with the Lord and his demeanor.
This story doesn't seem to want to go away anytime soon. CNN has even picked it up on their website with a video report.
Lydia:
Thanks for speaking up. I really did not know what the women on this blog would think, and your comments have helped me understand. I have never read any of her stuff. I just know that she is popular. I have found that most popular speakers are usually not the ones with the most depth. It's not because they are not smart, it's just that they are shooting for a broad audience - people with all sorts of backgrounds and interests.
Kind of like comparing Billy Graham to A.T. Robertson.
Rob, maybe you are not hearing your brother in Christ. I am not "against" the book either, though I have to say that I have not read it, and really don't have the time or interest. My understanding is that the book portrays God as a black female. Do I have that right? Well, surely you don't think that your elder thinks that God is a black female, or that God can be portrayed by any human other than Christ?
Is it possible that what the elder is saying is that he sees the book is fiction, that it does make theological errors in portraying God as it does, but that portrayal is so obviously an impossible thing that it is not to be taken seriously? And in that fantasy and fiction, there are some spiritual truths that are properly set forth?
I don't know for sure because I have not talked about the book at length with anyone.
Now I would tend to agree with you if the elder believed as a matter of doctrine that God is an old black woman. That's no offense to old black women. God is not George Burns either!
It seems to me that what at issue is not actually a doctrinal teaching, but how far tolerances can be stretched for how God is portrayed in a fictional book for literary purposes. I notice that Mohler did not like it because he thought it took liberties in this way.
Again, the whole thing is not my cup of tea, and my time for reading is so limited. So I am not rushing out to buy the book to read it.
But I believe that so long as the elder did not really buy into the things that I have talked about and that he sees the work as complete fiction (even a fictional portrayal that he would not write, but one someone else might write), what is the harm?
If the people in your church start believing God is a black woman, then you have got problems. Until then, it just seems to be a measure of how much tolerance people have toward intentionally fictional writing.
And, off the cuff, I have never been asked, but I don't think that every book Lifeway sells has to be Christian, in my opinion. Don't they sell dictionaries? (Ha! Ha!)
Louis
wait....is "the shack" doctrinally unsound?
Mon Sep 22, 11:00:00 PM 2008
There are two groups who find Shack unsound. One group are the hierarchalists who do not like Young portraying the Trinity without a chain of command structure. They are the 'Arian' wing of the SBC who love 'offices' and 'authorities' and are trying to make us believe that men portray 'god' on earth for women and that Eph 5 teaches us this along with the chain of command structure within the Trinity. These are the ones who want you to believe that Jesus Christ is 'eternally subordinate' to God and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to one or the other. (Grudem, Ware, Moore, etc) And that the Trinity does not have a united will, according to these folks, for eternity otherwise why the need for a chain of command structure?
Keep your eyes open for this...this is going to be the next big controversy in all of Christendom: The eternal subordination of Jesus Christ. This is a sign of the last days as many 'religous leaders' are intent on lessening the deity and sovereignty of Jesus Christ. The Name above all Names. All so they can rationalize their fleshly desire for authority over others in the Body and get rid of the concept of the Holy Priesthood once and for all.
Let the rock throwing begin :o)
The other group is like me as I am extremely uncomfortable with humanizing portrayals of God in any shape or form. Even putting Words in the mouth of the Trinity that are extra biblical interpretations of concepts concern me greatly. I think of Isaiah 6 and shiver.
Lydia
To Gary Snowden
In speaking of Chris, you said he was probably "just following orders".
JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS . . .
Don't you think that says it all?
Hi Lydia,
These varying doctrines about the nature of the Holy Trinity: I am so confused. What exactly IS the Southern Baptist concept of the Trinity. I come from an orthodox background and what it is that you are describing, I have never heard of this before.
I had thought that most Christians shared a basically orthodox concept of the Trinity.
L's Gran
wtreat here,
I may be mistaken, forgive me if I am, but I seem to remember a few years ago that we had a brand new updated Baptist History book, (I think by Leon McBeth), pulled and the reason was that it had a few pages on the rise of CBF.
Again, forgive and correct if I am wrong. It seems that it was in 1993-1994 or about then
grace
wtreat@centurytel.net
Okay, supposed all become loyal-Pattersonians and resolve to read only what is acceptable to the leadership.
How is one going to know if a book is "approved". Will there be an imprimatur on the frontispiece? This means a sign on the inside front cover that the book is "approved."
What is going to happen to those found indulging in unapproved reading matter?
What will happen to stores under that SBC auspices that sell anything other than what is allowed?
Is the SBC leadership right to assume that Baptist people cannot discern for themselves? If the answer is yes, then this outsider really doesn't "get it".
CONCERNED
As I remember, the book Leon McBeth wrote that was suppressed was on the history or the Sunday School Board (don't remember just when it happened). I don't remember any more details about that except that it was written after the changes in the SBC and the powers that be at that time apparently didn't like his honest take on some of the history. This is all off the top of my head, so there may have been other things he wrote that were suppressed, though I doubt he would have been given another chance by them.
I hated to see such an excellent teacher and person treated that way, though I shouldn't have been surprised.
Susie
Louis,
The Elder that I had this conversion with was the one who told me Lifeway only sells Christian literature.
Respectfully...you have no clue what you are talking about here. You are ignorant of the facts!
If you dont want to read the book I suggest Tim challies review here.
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php
or Michael Youssefs sermon here.
http://www.leadingtheway.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sto_TheShack_13heresies
A couple of months ago my pastor preached on hating evil. I believe the The shack is evil and I HATE it.
In Christ
Rob Masters
Robert:
Do you view your elder as evil and hate him? Are you going to try and have him removed? You believe the Shack is evil, but some do not.
And the circular logic continues...this is not a two sided argument. Scripture clears it up perfectly...sometimes it is best not to conjecture one's owns opinions and deal witht he logic of others taking them to their conclusions. If those being fundamentalists in this believe they are doing the right thing then they should have phased women out of the program nicely and not have been as gangbusters over it the issue of Klouda. ...are seminaries the dictates of Paul. It does not say anywhere of this style either. There are references are mentoring discipleships relationships. The word for teaching used by Paul to Timothy with women over a man is related a closenit mentorlike relationship. Makes sense. There is no tit for tat dialogue on points in this blog and all I am seeing is "oh did you hear?" "ooo that Patterson he can't be trusted he owns guns you know" Do some people know that their were profs in some of the baptists seminaries at one time that did not believe in the virgin birth at one time. There are some things that Patterson should be commnended about and other things I have no idea what he is thinking or whom he is trusting and why he has not screened predators better. The languages issue is the same thing. Where are prayer languages listed in the Bible? Nowhere. Tongues are the ligitimate languages of the believer's culture. Should profs been run off? Of course not, but they support their ideas from Scripture concerning it. Or maybe just not mention about it. I guess one could pray in code. Anyway, ee need to be back toward mutual edification.
Somewhere west of Enid
Correction.....
they need to support their views from Scripture concerning it or simply it needs to be dropped if one could pray in a coded language, there is nothing unscriptural if that is what you prefer. We do need to always be at the task for mutual edification in the dialogue of such matters. Fi there are those not listening and diatribes (factions) formed (which is a fruit of the flesh) then they should be called on it.
Tom Parker,
I do not consider this elder evil or hate him.
Iam not an evangelical and I know of no Reformed Baptist who supports the Shack.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Mr. Masters: You have now heard from a Reformed Baptist who supports The Shack, although that is not what this post is about. Of course I read it for what it is, fiction. This book helped me get through a very difficult time.
I might also say that if you would discipline an elder through the church for supporting this book, this book is the least of your troubles. Now how about getting back on the topic.
Debbie,
You can call your self anything you want but your myriad of comments on here indicate otherwise.
See Jim Savastio articles on the Reformed Baptist Distictives from the Reformed Baptist Quarterly.
"Reformed Baptists are distinguished by a conviction regarding male leadership in the church. This age has witnessed the feminization of Christianity. God created two sexes and gave to each a different corresponding role. While the sexes are equal in Creation, the Fall and Redemption, God has nonetheless sovereignly ordained that leadership in the home, the state, and the church is to be male. Those whose minds have been unduly influenced by this generation find Reformed Baptist worship, leadership and family structure to be jarring. When the Bible speaks of husbands and fathers leading the home it is not culturally conditioned. When the Bible speaks of men leading in prayer, teaching, preaching and serving as elders and deacons, Christians must bow with submissive and dutiful hearts. Culture must not carry the day in the church of Jesus Christ"
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Robert: And you go further off topic once again. I stand by what I have already told you in my previous comment to you. If that is what you have gotten from my comments here, then you have not been reading my comments very well.
I might also add that I haven't met any Reformers who have your zealot thoughts. So that might just make us even.
I haven't read The Shack so maybe shouldn't say anything but ... (sorry for getting off the subject)
Let's take a vote: How many think God is a black woman? How many a white male? Any votes for some other race? Probably most (other than those who have bought into the white male idea) would paint God with their own characteristics. Doing so may bring us closer to God, but we should not force a picture of God like us on others who are different. We (all humans) are made in God's image, not the reverse.
Jesus (who should know) said God is spirit. Jesus became human - God coming down to our level - but He was not the whole picture, just what we, with our limitations, could see.
If it helps you to think of God as like you, fine. Just remember that's not the whole picture and others are as much in God's image as you.
Susie
Another thing in this discussion is that there are those who are females who do believe as well there are biblical limtations on women in ministry and just feel real odd concerning women pastors. It becomes not the question of sex in leadership but now it becomes about gende ambition and power plays in the pulpit.
Wade,
You said:
"Since the book is such a good seller, and because many managers of LifeWay bookstores opposed the action, a "doctrinal review" committee was established by the board of trustees which ultimately "cleared" The Shack of any doctrinal heresy."
WHAT?!?!?!?! Are they serious? If they can't see heresy in that book they need their eyes examined badly. The funny part is that the book is totally eggletarian (sp). Further, I wonder if they are going to pull Ray Bolt's music off their shelves since he is living an openly homosexual lifestyle. My guess, probably not.
Think about it. If control is the goal: with 50 per cent of the competition eliminated (any human carrying that female chromosome); then the the half of those remaining will have an easier time of it.
If the goal is to do the will of God: then, examine how Jesus employed women to help Him. We can't ignore that Mary of Magdala was sent by Him to tell the men about the Resurrection. His actions do speak louder than the culturally-tinged views of the men who followed Him.
OBSERVOR
Robert Masters:
Are you going to have disciplined any one who works where alcohol is served or sold?
Robert Masters,
I am a reformed Baptist. I read The Shack and found it fascinating, and profitable for me to have read.
I never understood the pain that women endured from the predudices of a male-dominated society until I saw the movie "Iron-Jawed Angels".
You know, it's not about who is in power. A lot of it is about whether or not the rest of us allow the powerful to oppress us.
Sometimes a simple, but very firm, ENOUGH, is the answer. Then, to be prepared for the response and to summon the strength to bear it until the abusers become ashamed of themselves.
"I had thought that most Christians shared a basically orthodox concept of the Trinity."
So did I. But CBMW is losing the biblical debate on women being unequal in 'role' (as if 'acting' a part is in scripture) so they have resorted to this teaching on the Trinity to try and convince people of inherent hierarchies in the ETERNAL Trinity that parallel men and women relationships and roles in the Body of Christ.
Ironically, Kevin Giles, An Anglican Pastor in Australia, has an orthodox view of the Trinity and he wrote two books refuting this quasi-Arian heresy that Grudem and others are teaching because it is also being taught in Australia. Here is a link to a short paper he wrote on the subject:
http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/Giles_Adam.pdf
He also wrote two books that are very well researched and do not employ the mental gymnastics that Grudem uses with the Trinity to try and prove subordination of women.
Giles wrote a review of Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism that will give you more insight on this issue and why CBMW and others are trying to change the orthodox view of the Trinity.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/br223_evangelical_feminism.pdf
I never thought I would be agreeing with an Anglican pastor over an SBC Seminary president who promotes Grudem but after studying this, I can see where they are so desparate to prove earthly inherent hierarchy of men they will resort to even lessing the deity and sovereignty of our Lord.
They have even gone so far as to mangle quotes from Augustine and Athanaisus to try and prove their points but Giles shows how bad their scholarship really is.
This should be a huge concern to to all of us. Grudem's books are treated as sacred texts by some of our seminaries. We have young skulls full of mush there that put their profs on pedestals and follow blindly.
Cheryl Schatz is developing a DVD refuting Grudem, Ware and others teaching on the Eternal Subordination of Jesus within the Trinity that should be out in late October. Here is a link: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/14/trinity-dvd-done/
Cheryl has a ministry to the cults and she has been appalled at how this teaching by Grudem and others mirrors what the Jehovah Witnesses teach about Jesus.
Is this off topic? No. It goes back to why they were so concerned about a little old magazine with some women pastors on the cover being such a threat to them.
Proof texting is no longer working as more people can check the Greek, etc., so now they have to toy with the Trintiy.
Lydia
Thank you , Lydia, for responding and including so many references. I had no idea how bad things had become. It just occured to me that, if "they" (the leadership) are willing to mangle translations, that this provides more insight into what happened to Sheri Klouda.
Yes, she was a woman. But from all reports, she was also an excellent instructor of Hebrew. So they got her on two fronts: eliminate a scholar who might challenge manipulated translations AND use the "she's a woman" excuse to do it. This is a very sad business, I think. I am not a Southern Baptist, but I wonder if my grandmother who was, would recognize the "changes" as being Baptist at all?
Thanks again,
L's Gran
More people, even women, learning Greek and Hebrew. Scary. Information is power. In earlier times it was forbidden for slaves to learn to read. Before that there was opposition to translating the Bible into the vernacular so people who didn't know Latin could read it for themselves.
Of course, translation brings its own issues. The reason we have the word baptize in English is because the word in Greek means immerse, but since they weren't doing that when they translated the Bible into English they transliterated the word and made a new English word.
So now we can notice such things as strange paragraph breaks in the much used passage in Ephesians 5: There is no verb in verse 22 - it must be repeated from verse 21 if you do not translate something like: submit to one another, wives to husbands... and make the two verses part of the same paragraph.
Then we can notice how different words are used to refer to Phoebe in Romans 16 than are used in the same word for deacon in 1 Timothy.
Susie
L's Gran:
I have been in the Baptist Church for 35 years and I do not even begin to recognize the Denomination that it used to be. Power hungry people have ruined it. As Wade has pointed out the SBC acts like a cult and turns too many people off. For some the word Baptist is a very negative word. Sadly, I believe the denomiation I used to know is gone.
To Tom Parker,
Thank you for your observations. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on some of the changes that you have seen happen in these last thirty-five years. My grandmother passed before thirty-five years ago, and I am left with only positive memories of her faith. Thanks, if you can share.
L's Gran
To Susie,
Some early Christian martyrs had not yet undergone the ritual of baptism with water.
The early Church stated that these martyrs had been baptized by their own blood, and that this was sufficient to fulfill the sacramental ritual requirement.
To L's Gran:
Hold to those positive memories. That time, imperfect though it may have been, was when we came closer to what Baptists "should be" than the SBC now. My grandmother and my father did not live to see what came of the SBC that they thought was doing God's work in the world. I remember my mother in her last years praising those she knew who were being spoken against. But she did not live to see the worst of it. Should I be glad these three did not live through all the pain of those of us who saw the destruction of the SBC as we knew it?
There is too much to tell for the space of comments here. If you read histories of that time, just carefully evaluate your reading. Some praise the "conservative resurgence" while others -myself included- mourn the "takeover". It is a sad story of verbal manipulation, power plays, and large groups (including children as messengers) being bused into meetings for crucial votes only. And all along they insisted they were just defending the Bible, which statements fooled too many people for too long.
Susie
L's Gran:
Susie did an excellent job of answering your question to me. I really can not add to it.
Susie:
You said--"It is a sad story of verbal manipulation, power plays, and large groups (including children as messengers) being bused into meetings for crucial votes only. And all along they insisted they were just defending the Bible, which statements fooled too many people for too long." Susie, what an excellent summary of what happened!! I believe God is going to hold these people accountable for all the damage they caused to so many of God's servants and for the many people who were turned off to God because of their actions.
To Susie,
I think my grandmother would have been upset, also. I came to this site to learn about her faith; but it seems that her religion is under strong attack by political entities, dressed up as Baptists.
The mystery is: who are these people? Between you and me, I have never understood labels like "liberal" and "conservative" but I am able to understand the label of "Christian". Even I can see that these people are using evil tactics in their pursuit of some end that has nothing to do with the Gospel.
I hope Southern Baptists don't abandon my grandmother's church into the hands of these people.
It would mean the loss of a precious heritage from ancestors of blessed memory.
Prayers,
L's Gran
I would normally consider this being off topic, but since someone else brought it up--
The Conservative Resurgence was a good thing for the SBC on many levels. Basically, had that not happened the convention would be in the hands of the same kind of people who formed the CBF. The only difference between us and the PC-USA, I'd wager, would be baptisim and eschatology.
That having been said-Lifeway, if it is going to be consistent, has a lot of stuff on their shelves that is considerably more unbiblical than this magazine.
Joe Blackmon:
Would you be willing to see any faults with the CR? Those people that are in the CBF used to be in the SBC? I refuse to believe that they are all misguided.
Tom
If by faults do you mean that Paige Patterson seems like Boss Hogg at times, I would probably give you a "Yee-Haw". I cannot speak for every CBF'er on God's planet but most of the ones I've met were ones who said the Bible "contains" the word of God rather than it IS the word of God. They also are quite comfortable with the notion that homosexuality is not a sin but is rather an orientation. Given the choice between those types of folks and someone who'll sit and eat bar-b-que whilst yelling at his underlings to "Git dem Duke boys" I'll take Patterson anyday. He's much eaiser to ignore.
Joe:
I politely challenge your statement of the word "most". I do not believe what you are saying about "most" CBFers. As far as Patterson and Pressler they destroyed the SBC that I and others love so very much. They used the Bible to destroy a denomination and God will hold them accountable. You can have Patterson. For myself, no I would rather not have him.
""The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say," Turner said."
yet they KEEP The Shack which says that Jesus is the best way to heaven, not the only way? Oy, Lifeway!
To Mr. Blackmon
Do you see "The Bible" as one book or a collection of Holy Scriptures from many sources written over a period of thousands of years?
Do you believe that "the Bible" was written by men who were inspired of God?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit guides us when we read the scriptures; or do you believe that there is only one meaning and that is determined by men in your church?
I trying to understand your wording concerning "the Bible".
OUTSIDER
Tom
So you're saying that most of the CBF'ers I HAVE MET did not hold to those positions? Really? So, what, I dreamed it all? Is this like that season of Dallas where Pam goes to the shower and Bobby was in there and it was all just a bad dream?
Perhaps you failed to note that I said "of the CBF'ers I" had met, not necessarily all CBF'ers. Although if I was part of an organization that held to such Biblically indefensible positions like the Bible "containing" the word of God or professors at Mercer who write that "Gay Christians" won't wait any longer I'd high-tail it out of that group quicker than you could say "Jippity Christmas". But that's just me and I've been told I'm plumb off.
Joe:
You say the Bible IS the word of God. I thought that Christ was the Word made Flesh smd that the Word Incarnate (Jesus) dwelt among us.
What do you think?
Outsider
Do you see "The Bible" as one book or a collection of Holy Scriptures from many sources written over a period of thousands of years?
Well, it is one book that is a collection of books written from one Source (The Holy Spirit) over thousands of years. I mean, the book of Matthew, for instance, is a seperate book from the book of Joshua but both are part of the recognized cannon of Scripture.
Do you believe that "the Bible" was written by men who were inspired of God? Yes, I believe in verbal plenary inspiration. As 2 Peter says, the Holy Spirit of God moved these men to write scripture. I believe they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write without Paul sounding like James or Moses. Their individual personalities come through in the writing. However, it is still 100% God's word.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit guides us when we read the scriptures; or do you believe that there is only one meaning and that is determined by men in your church? I do not believe Scipture is of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21. I certainly don't believe anyone in my church "determines" what the interpretation of Scripture is. As to the Holy Spirit guiding us, well, yes, it's only through His indwelling presense that we can come to understand truth from scripture. There are normal, time honored, biblical methods for studying and understanding scripture. By applying those, we can discover the meaning of scripture for ourselves.
Anon:
You asked, "You say the Bible IS the word of God. I thought that Christ was the Word made Flesh smd that the Word Incarnate (Jesus) dwelt among us. "
I don't see how one negates the other. The Bible is the word of God. Jesus is the Word made flesh who dwelt among us.
Since when did any Christian get the authority to condemn anyone else as a sinner. ALL Christians are sinners; except for the One who is able to bring us back to God.
SINNER
Joe, thank you for your response. I have been learning how other people see the Scriptures and you have helped. Do you interpret all of the Scriptures literally? Or are there portions that you think are not to be taken literally?
Also, do you have any beliefs or practices in your faith that come from Christian traditions that are not mentioned in the Scriptures?
Sorry for so many questions; but grateful for your viewpoint, if you can help me. Thank you,
P.S. I am not setting you up for any argument. Please know that I will be respectful of your beliefs. ig
OUTSIDER
Joe Blackmon:
How many CBFers have you met, that you used to draw the conclusions that they do not believe the Bible and are ok with gays.
Hi Tom,
I know that Patterson and Pressler are the bosses of the SBC. I know that SBC is acronym for Southern Baptist Convention. Can you tell me about the CBF and fill me in on some basic ways that it is in contrast with the SBC? Grateful for clarification, if you can.
OUTSIDER
Outsider
This will likely be the last chance I have to post anything today. But since you asked:
Do you interpret all of the Scriptures literally? Or are there portions that you think are not to be taken literally? Well, I do think scripture should be taken literally but that means different things in different contexts. For instance, Genesis 1 tells us that the world was created in 6/24 hour days. I take that literally. Jesus, in Matthew 18, says a slave owed his master 10,000 talents. Well, that's a parable and as I understand it, the figure of 10,000 talents may have been one way of saying "more money than you'll see in your life time". A good study bible and bible commentaries are helpful in determining how to interpret a passage literally. I sure don't pretend to have all the answers.
Also, do you have any beliefs or practices in your faith that come from Christian traditions that are not mentioned in the Scriptures?
Well, I guess having a church choir isn't mentioned in the Bible. Sunday School or the order of worship is not really something that I could point to a scripture and say "Here ya go". When I give at church, I don't like to give checks or fill out an offering envelope. I want that to be between me and God, or rather between my wife and I and God. I know that's not in the Bible but it is something that I personally do.
Outsider:
I can share this much with you. All CBFers do not have a problem with the word of God and not all are quite comfortable with the notion that homosexuality is not a sin but is rather an orientation. That is much too broad of a sweep with the proverbial brush. Just as in the SBC not all have a problem with women being pastors.
Thanks, Tom
Do you think that there will ever be a reconciliation?
I ask because I know that Wade is working to try to give voice and support to the traditional Southern Baptists he serves.
Do you think that the leadership of the SBC, which appear to me to be extreme fundamentalists, are in the majority of the SBC or just a controlling minority?
In short, in your opinion, how much hope is there for a Christian renewal of the SBC?
OUTSIDER
I may not have time to read all 100+++ comments on this site and it may have already been addressed.
It is my understanding that Lifeway did not refuse to sell the magazine. It is my understanding that they would sell it but put it behind the counter so that one would have to ask for it. Then Lifeway would gladly take the money in exchange for the magazine. They continue to sell the magazine, and for all we know, they may actually be selling more of them then they normally would if it was just sitting out in the display racks.
That is very different from saying, I cannot in all good conscience sell this magazine, so we will pull all of these issues out of our stores. They also apparently will continue to sell future issues of the magazine.
I have much more respect for refusing to sell the magazine than I do over hiding it away but continuing to profit from it. That would then, by their own definition and admission, make themselves purveyors of doctrines that they did not believe in.
Sorry if that's already been mentioned, but I wanted to risk repeating it in the even that someone failed to point this out.
A few have expressed some concern over what actually defines a cult...
Dr. Paul Martin said that there were two kinds of fruit: that of the doctrine preached and that of the life lived. In that respect there can be two kinds of cults -- those that teach false doctrine and those that use coercive and manipulative means to recruit and control membership.
In terms of doctrine, a cult denies the central teachings of Christian orthodoxy, primarily always denying the Trinity.
(Do we have anyone in the SBC arguing subordinationism in the Trinity? Hmmm. A comment for another day and another thread, but a reasonable one.)
In terms of behavior, a Biblical Christian church can manifest the characteristics of cultic manipulation and thus be considered a mind-control or thought reform cult while still claiming sound basic doctrine.
One can use a couple of different criteria for determining cultic behavior. One is the "Spiritual Abuse" model according to Henke, wherein a group demonstrates the following:
Authoritarian Systems and leaders over-emphasize authority
Image Conscious Maintains high standards to validate specialness to God
Suppresses Criticism No questioning of doctrine or leadership is permitted
Perfectionistic Blessings come through performance and noncompliance is punished.
Unbalanced/Elitist Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God
....
The other criteria generally used to evaluate whether a group demonstrates cultic behavior is Robert Lifton's Thought Reform model:
Milieu Control -- The control of information and communication, and generation of propaganda
Mystical Manipulation -- The manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated
Demand for Purity -- The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection
Cult of Confession -- Sins, flaws and shortcomings (as defined by the group) are to be confessed to the group
Sacred Science -- The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute
Loading the Language -- The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand
Doctrine Over Person -- The member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group
Dispensing of Existence -- The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does no
There's plenty more to read on my blog and website if you want more information about this topic.
I've seen varying degrees of all these characteristics at work in the SBC in recent years. I'm still shocked to see it, and I rejoice that it is not true of all Southern Baptists. Sadly, sound doctrine does eventually get a person out of these groups and makes us less likely to get caught up into them, but we are all vulnerable to manipulation and these power of these group dynamics because they exploit both the good and bad aspects of human nature. Sound doctrine is not immunization against these ideas, otherwise I don't think we would be hearing teachings that Jesus does not have the authority or either hear or answer prayer because He does not possess the Father's supreme and ultimate authority within an ontologically hierarchical Trinity. I think that the social aspects of cultic behavior within the SBC have paved the way so that SBC seminaries are willing to allow these questionable views of Trinity to be entertained. Poor fruit of the life lived generally begets aberrant doctrine and vice versa.
Cindy,
Your appraisal of the situation is correct. Lifeway has not ceased to sell the magazine; they just don't have it on the shelf. It is available if requested. I know this is strictly anecdotal evidence and based on one person's experience, but one of our administrative assistants went by a Lifeway store yesterday and asked to buy the magazine. The two clerks kind of exchanged nervous glances she said, and then sold her the magazine. The clerk then commented that they had sold more issues of this month's edition than any previous one. There's probably a parable there about forbidden fruit or something.
Someone also posed the question about what Lifeway may have done as an alternative to placing the magazine behind the counter like pornography.
I think that they could have chosen to do several different things, considering that they controlled the venue.
1. Issued a position statement and posted it in many venues like on all SBC related websites where it would be deemed relevant.
2. Posted their position statement in shop windows, and on the display cases themselves. When I attended a religious nursing school, this was done whenever the required information necessary to meet state standards contradicted the position of the church that operated the school. They would present the information and teach it well, but they would provide a detailed description of the counter argument and the church policy.
3. Because the settings are controlled, they could have attached a notice to each magazine or put a paper sleeve around the magazine, noting the church's official position. They might have used it as an opportunity to raise funds for a charity in the process. It could have generated just as much discussion, would not have been seen like a type of censorship and a clear statement could have been made. But I think that this option would not have been seen as so sensational, and the bookstore spokesman could not have issued a vague statement. If you attach a flyer on something, you will have to give some strong reasons, which I think could have been done. But I think that the SBC rather prefers to keep these matters as vague as they can in order to keep as many options open to them as possible. The more they say and the more specific it is, the more people they risk offending.
My opinion, of course. And every fool and wise man in America usually has one.
Rob:
You are probably right. I have not read the Shack, and don't intend to. I also don't intend to go read sermons about the Shack.
What I was trying to get at was this - what is your problem with the elder? Is it,
1. He read the Shack and agreed with the theology in it.
2. He read the Shack and did not agree with the theology in it, but still found that it made an interesting point or two.
3. It doesn't matter whether he read the Shack - LifeWay sells the Shack and he has not stopped LifeWay from selling the Shack. (This of course assumes that he alone has the power to set the policy about whether to sell the Shack. Does he have that power? If not, this number 3 doesn't fit because you would be mad at him for something he can't control).
4. He did not read the Shack, he cannot control whether the Shack is stocked at LifeWay, but he did not try to even stop the Shack from being stocked. (I am not sure how you would know this. I am just including it as an option).
5. He did not read the Shack, had no control over whether it should be stocked at LifeWay, but has not publicly denounced the Shack at church or in some other venue.
If number 5 is the case, see my earlier posts. Denominational employees who do not make policy, in my opinion, can either seek to become policy makers or they can try to change the policy - if they have the power. If they don't, they have a decision - either work within the policy (which means if you're an executive, say nothing about it) or quit because you can't support it.
6. He said that Lifeway sells only Christian books and since the Shack is not a Christian book, he should not say that.
In my opinion, number 1 is the only thing that would create a discipline issue for an elder (assuming the theology is wacked out in that book). Also, if he had the sole authority to stock the book or not and did so without any input from superiors/trustees etc., I would want to look into that further. But I don't think that there is such a one person guy at Lifeway.
By the way, I do not doubt your sincerity about hating the book. But my advice would be to write the chairman of the Lifeway Board of Trustees and express your concerns. They are the ones with the power at LifeWay. If they don't act to your liking, I don't have any further suggestions.
I am sincere in trying to figure out what you think specifically this elders' problems are. I do not have the time or inclination to read the Shack or to delve into all of the objections. I have not read any of the Left Behind series or the Purpose Driven Life.
I have read a book on the History of the English Language recently, and the relatively new biography of Stalin. I did not finish reading through the Bible last year, but I should be done in about 16 months. So I read a lot, plus what I read at work - which is all day. But I usually don't get all tied up in the latest fiction books.
Good luck.
Louis
Hi Cindy,
I am one of those opinionated fools but, since I know I'm a fool, I suppose that makes me very wise indeed. (I wish.) :)
May I compliment you on your very clear description of the different categories and criteria for cults. This helps to evaluate the tactics of the SBC leadership in their abuse of Sheri Kouda; God's precious missionaries, Wade, and who knows how many others.
One thing I have learned today. I had been thinking that critical thinking skills and respect for academic learning were not valued by Baptists. I have certainly learned that this is not the case, the evidence clear to any of Wade's readers.
Cindy, thank you for taking time to share all of this. It really gives Wade's readers something to think about. I will also look up your resources (Henke and Lipton).
I will click on your name and I hope I can find your website.
Thank you,
OUTSIDER
Cindy:
I think I sense some reasonable comments coming from you. Not that I agree with all of them, but they are reasonable, not harsh and well put. Good job.
Louis
Cindy:
I think if the SBC did not want people to read this magazine they sure went about it the wrong way. I would not have known the magazine even existed. I am very tempted to buy me this magazine to find out what it was that I needed to be shielded from.
Hi Cindy,
I checked out your website: what a wealth of resources. You bring so many disciplines together for us to browse through. My compliments to your feline authors, Simeon and Anna. I will be a regular visitor. :)
OUTSIDER
Uh...can everyone tell that Louis is a lawyer? :o)
To Lin,
Yes, I had noticed the possibility and, even suspected some expertise as a corporate lawyer. I have one of those in my family, a cousin, Kurt Kusiak in Boston. (very proud of him his mother is):)
Outsider:
You have asked some really good questions about the SBC and the CBF and the differences.
I supported the CR strongly and still do. The CR ended in 1992 (I think?), in New Orleans when the leading moderates (as they call themselves) decided they could not longer win any elections in the SBC. They left immediately and started the CBF. After years and years of hearing how much they loved our missionaries, they first started an alternative missions funding strategy, and then eventually started their own missions agency.
Everyone has an opinion. Here are mine.
First, remember the CBF is really small. Their budget is small. They haven't grown. They have refused to become their own denomination. They really don't start that many churches.
They intentionally have adopted NO doctrinal statement or covenant. It basically goes something like Cecil Sherman once said: "Good faith, good sense." That's it. Many of them surely believe more than that, but they cannot put it down on paper because if they do, not all of them will agree and the schisms will begin.
They basically subscribe to Jesus in your heart telling you what to believe. Sound's good, until you find out how different Jesus' advice is to one guy versus another. One guy believes in the Trinity. Another guy doesn't. So, you really cannot talk about theology that much in that type of atmosphere.
If you look at their literature, their programs etc. it's very experiential. You will never go to a CBF conference and hear a speaker talk about Christ's substitutionary atoning death on the cross, the eternal nature of Christ - his preexistence with the father, his virgin birth, his substitutionary death, his literal bodily resurrection etc.
Most of their conferences and literature is about being the presence of Christ, being free and faithful Baptists, the separation of Church and State, interfaith dialogue, social programs for the poor, and how mean the SBC is.
None of the seminaries they support, save perhaps Baylor (and they have exceptions there) would have an evangelical statement of faith. They are basically divinity schools etc.
The CBF is made up really of three distinct groups. One, usually older group that is very much like many in the SBC. Culturally and biblically conservative. They were just in denominational life when the moderates lost control, and they wanted to continue to have more influence or some of their friends or pastors were CBF types, so they were influenced by them. Many people became moderates simply because their pastor or someone they went to school with became a moderate leader.
These people, aside from the personal animosity they may hold to SBC leaders, are just like the people in the SBC.
They are so blinded by either love of their CBF leaders or anger toward the SBC that they really thought the CBF was going to be a conservative Baptist organization. They are like liberals who get mugged. They are so shocked by what some in CBF leadership say and do, or what happens at the CBF meetings, they just can't believe it. They are truly people without a home.
Another group is the real visionary engine behind the CBF. They are theological and cultural liberals in many respects. I would put Bill Leonard the Dean at the Wake Forest Divinty School in this camp. He is full bore behind the homosexual movement. He is a theological leader in the CBF. Some of these people also helped organize the Baptist confab in Atlanta last year. These people will lead the CBF in the future.
The third group of people might be classified as people who are like the first group, they are just not theologically astute enough to know bad theology when they see it. Plus I will admit that there may be some good preachers in the CBF who sound like mainstream baptists. Their theology may be thin, but it's not bad. The people in these churches just follow them.
The real dividing line in the CR was not who is liberal and who is not. The question was what to do with the liberals in the schools. This debate had been going on for decades. Strong executive leadership at the agencies and in Nashville, and an emphasis on evangelism to the exclusion of many theological issues kept this debate at bay for many years.
In the 40s and 50s the first defection were what became independent baptists. They were concerned with lifestyle issues, bu there were theological issues as well.
The 60s saw the Elliott controversy errupt and K. Owen White, First Baptist Houston's election to the SBC Presidency and the sermon "Death in the Pot."
Baptists in many quarters over the years were concerned about the theological drift of the schools, and that concern did not lessen. It only grew.
Then, in the late 1960s a young lawyer named Paul Pressler from Houston decided that something needed to be done. He was from an elite family in Houston and went to the best schools in the country. He went to Phillips Exeter, then Princeton. He understood full well what neoorthodoxy was, and he saw it in the local churches in the Northeast. He went to school with some of the Neibuhr family and others who had family members who were well known theologians.
He returned to Houston to practice law with his wife Nancy, who had gone to Smith college, and also began to see the decline of evangelical Christianity in the the Northeast.
When they came back to Houston, they started a Bible study for young people that met for probably 30 years in their home. Many of these students who would go away to school at Baptist colleges and seminaries would return with less than traditional, orthodox beliefs about Scripture and Christian essentials.
Pressler met a young Paige Patterson in New Orleans in 1969, and they both agreed something needed to be done. They both spent the next 20 years of their lives trying to rally Baptists to attend the annual meeting of their convention to affect change.
They met a very receptive group of people in the grassroots churches. And people started attending the convention in droves to express their concerns.
So after 10 or 12 conservative victories, the moderate leaders packed it up and started the CBF.
The main difference between these groups is still where to draw parameters on Christian doctrine. The conservatives basically believe that to have a good denomination, there needs to be an agreement on Christian essentials. The moderates were not willing to deal with theological aberrant situations, and just took a leave them alone posture. The problem was that too many people in Baptist churches had seen for their own eyes, and they decided that something needed to be done.
I would say that moderates would say that to have a good denomination, one needs to agree on the program, not theology. So, if one has the ordinances down (really from tradition, not doctrine), then rally support around a program - missions etc. Theology is a secondary concern, and should not keep any Baptist out of participating. So, in that system people who do not believe that the Bible is God's word, or believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the subsitutionary atonement, the resurrection, the exlcusivity of Christ for salvation, can be included because they are good people and they are following what Jesus tells them in their hearts.
Conservatives would say that without a common theological confession, it is useless to talk about programming.
That is the major dividing line.
Louis
Lin:
Pretty funny. Let me tell you, it is a pain in the butt to live with a guy like me!
Take care.
Louis
"Pretty funny. Let me tell you, it is a pain in the butt to live with a guy like me!"
You were cracking me up with all the 'options'. I do not want to be cross examined by you if I decide to become a corporate criminal.
Lin:
Thanks for the compliment, but I really am not trying to put anyone on the spot.
I understand that Rob is genuinely upset about the book. I am really trying to understand his problem with the elder.
Louis
Louis,
None of the above....He has read the book, dismissed it as fiction in the same calibar as the some of C.S.Lewis writings!
But the problem lies in the way that it is presented. It is a narrative which presents theological truth. Rob Bell does this all the time . He presents theology in a narrative but if people object he simple says...is just fiction. Nice post-modern strategy.
The end result is anti-christian theology sold by Lifeway.
He might read it as fiction but millions of others are not and it is leading them to an idol.
An example.....Steve Berger, Grace Chapel Liepers Fork.
"wrapped in creative brilliance, the Shack is spiritually profound,theologically enlightening and life impacting. It has my highest recommendations. We are joyfully giving copies away by the case."
quoted from the book.
Now one of the duties of an elder is to hold fast the doctrines of the faith. How does this do that ,whether in private or public.
Rob Masters
Rob, Gaines was not disciplined for coddling a pedophile MINISTER of prayer and no one cares that Patterson has promoted Gaines having him in to speak at chapel and other things!~ So, what do you expect? Is that a lessor problem even though it INVOLVES living bad doctrine and ignoring scripture?
Lydia
To Louis,
Thank you for giving your view of events involving SBC and CBF.
So much of what you write about is difficult for me. The concept that CBF may not be thriving because of funds and size? Perhaps they are too busy trying to serve the poor and build up the Kingdom of God rather than to go into the construction business. In the meantime, maybe they are hopeful that, some day, they can, with integrity, return to the SBC as they knew it before the "takeover".
As for their diversity. Is this really a sign that things are not going well for them? Better to be inclusive than to be insular. Much more healthy. There must be a place for Baptist people who cannot stomach fundamentalism as expressed in the tactics of the "hostile takeover".
As for your descriptions of the background of Mr Pressler. I know about Phillips Exeter, the philosopher Niebuhr, Princeton, and Smith College. I fail to see how people exposed to such excellent education and cultural diversity could possibly fall into something as narrow as fundamentalism. What a stretch! Smith College, in Northhampton? From a seven sisters school that offers a world-class liberal arts education to a fundamentalist philosophy? Quite a stretch.
Louis, do you believe that fundamentalism is anywhere near orthodox, conservative Christianity? I, myself, come from a very orthodox background and fundamentalism is alien to me. So, it's hard to understand.
But, Louis, the most difficult thing of all: the TACTICS used by Pressler, Patterson, et al. What about the TACTICS of the hostile takeover? And the fall-out: Sheri Klouda, the missionaries, Wade's ordeal???? This is evidence of fundamentalist treatment, not orthodox conservative Christian treatment. It raises alarms with Christian ethicists. May have been legal, but was it right? It's the old ends justify means argument, maybe. But it makes no sense in a Christian community.
So on one side, the law, privilege, power, money and control. On the other side, perhaps a greater force, an ethical desire to see justice done. Who wins? I have a feeling that the former group has won the day but lost the moral high ground. Please, respondez s'il vous plait.
Thanks again, for the information.
OUTSIDER
Dear Outsider,
Louis's disection of the CBF is not as harsh as some, and I certainly respect him. However, I'm sure you recognize that it is from his perspective, and not all in the CBF (I'm not clear if he is or not, though I suspect not) would agree with him. They/we are smaller, and growth seems to have plateaued, although whether this is temporary or permanent is a question time will answer. The same thing happened in the 19th Century between the SBC and the Primitive Baptists, and look who finally came out more numerous. And Louis is partly right in that the CBF does not engage in the sort of theology-by-resolution that has become very popular in the SBC in recent years. However, their/our (and mind you I am not in any upper eschalon, I just send them my paltry contributions from time to time) perspective is (1) that the CBF is not a denomination, so theological pronouncements are not appropriate, and (2) if you will google their website and go to it, you will see that many of these theological issues are indeed addressed in the CBF's core values, where we/they think it is more appropriate--and that is the basis for the CBF as a missions-sending agency. At present, the CBF operates much like the para-church missions societies among Baptist churches of the early 19th Century, before the formation of the SBC.
Personally, I'm one of those with one foot in the CBF and one in the SBC, waiting to see if the theological fundamentalism which has reigned in the SBC these 20+ years is the shape of things to come in the SBC, or if the pendulum will swing back toward what I regard as a more healthy and orthodox conservatism.
John Fariss
LYDIA,
The difference is that Iam not a member of Bellevue Baptist. Iam a member of where this Lifeway executive is an elder.
God Bless
Rob Masters
remember Baptist and local church
'I disagree. Lifeway exists for the purpose of providing Christian materials which they deem beneficial to the proclamation of the Gospel. The SBC believes the ordination of women is contrary to the mission of the Church as given by our Lord. Since they believe only males should be heads of the Church,'
Wait a minute. Since when could males be heads of the church? I read in the bible that only Christ is the head of the church.
As soon as some read that the husband is the head of the wife, then it gets added that he is also the head of the home and then also that males are the heads of the church? Is there anything else the male is not head of? Why all the addition to scripture? It's terrible.
Hi John,
It's me, "Outsider". I hope that the pendulum swings back for you and that you can go home again.
Around here, some of my friends from other denominations are so upset over fundamentalists in their churches that they wonder "when will it be safe to go back to church". So, you are certainly not alone.
John, do you think that the leadership of the SBC has more of a political agenda than a religious one? The SBC is a giant organization and is a powerful voting block. Control of the SBC and its members for political purposes: is this a possible agenda for them? I'm just trying to make some sense of all this and maybe it would explain some of their extreme, profoundly un-Christian tactics.
John Farris,
Keep that foot in the door of the SBC.
It's about to swing open.
:)
Thanks for the complimentary feedback about my site. It's mostly all a reiteration of things that other people have put together. I also purposely do not use a lot of Scripture because so many people have been beat up with Scripture that it can be uncomfortable.
I can tell you that when you've been in a manipulative, cultic group (a mostly doctrinally sound one like I was), when someone reads you those characteristics about cultic groups, you feel creaturely and wonderful at the same time -- someone knows exactly what you've been through. So my goal on online with much of this focuses on getting people to start asking questions. Once people wake up to the realities of manipulation, I believe that God will deliver them through the Holy Spirit's renewal of their own critical thinking skills, ones that were temporarily relinquished to some paternal authority figure.
And I am not a Baptist, though I will say that my own beliefs, after learning to read NT Greek and re-examining my childhood beliefs of Pentecostalism, I seem to be well in line with the BF&M. So when I state that I see a lot of these behavioral things at work in the SBC, I am speaking from a limited experience with them, as about 6 months ago, some esteemed professors at SBTS used authoritarian means to silence me on some of these related topics. So my perspective is limited and not representative of the whole of the SBC. I would guess that if I were a nice Okie in Enid attending Pastor Wade's church, I'm sure I'd have a very different opinion.
"The difference is that Iam not a member of Bellevue Baptist. Iam a member of where this Lifeway executive is an elder.
remember Baptist and local church"
You don't get it. Your elder is NOT going to be disciplined because he is an ELDER. Don't you get it? He is YOUR authority. You MUST submit no matter what. He has an OFFICE and a 'title' of Elder. Show some respect for your authorities. They know better than you or they would NOT be elders. You are just being rebellious and bitter. (wink)
But, are you also saying that it is ok that Patterson promotes Gaines instead of rebuking him publicly because his local church (where he is the ultimate authority in your all's language) did nothing... so that means everything is ok and we all should just overlook the tiny fact that he had NO problem having a pedophile minister of prayer on staff for 6 months? okey dokey.
Gee, couldn't the SBC throw BBC out? I heard some local associations have thrown out churches that hired a woman pastor. Aren't pedophile ministers worse? I guess not.
BTW: How are things in Geneva. You know, in Geneva, they would have you thrown in the tower for confronting the church authorities like this. Remember, it is an office...not a function of spiritual maturity. :o)
Your pal, Lydia (smile...just giving you a hard time)
The husband is head of the home. I can vouch for that. That does not men that God has to through the man to woman rather it is a special intercessor role that the husband plays in the family. This is not about lordship it is about shepherding. The same goes for pastor being male, there is intercessory role here not supremacy of authority. Good grief can we get some balance on this issue.
Ambition is very dangerous in high-level ministry roles and can lead to conceit if not careful. In Christ there is no descrepancy between male and female in this regard either.
Outsider,
You present yourself a target for receiving different Baptist ideas. There are many kinds of Baptist denominations. Southern Baptists is the largest one, but is fast going in the other direction due to the leadership that insists we must think like their new doctrines. They claim they are going back to the thinking of early Christians.
I agree they are going back to one of two types of early Christians. With today’s terminology the early Christians could be divided into ‘Conservatives’ and ‘Moderates’. These two groups clashed in Acts 15, when ‘Conservatives’ said ‘Moderates’ were not saved because they did not obey the laws of Moses.
That’s like SB leaders today, saying you must be a Conservative, sign their BFM, pray a certain way, be baptized by an official SB in a SB church, and now the new Baptist Identity Group. They think they’re building walls to keep sin out, but they’re making prisoners within.
Back to Acts 15:5 (NLT) “But then some of the believers who belonged to the SECT of the Pharisees stood up and insisted the Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to follow the law of Moses.”
Webster: “Sect—A group having a common doctrine.”
Their doctrine could be described as JESUS PLUS SOMETHING that is still popular today.
Paul agreed with Peter saying, “All are saved the same way, by the free gift of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 15:11) This group believed JESUS PLUS NOTHING, but Peter’s words were omitted from the letter (first BFM) sent to the Gentiles.
Peter said if Gentiles were “burdened” by laws they would be “correcting God.” But the letter said it was the Holy Spirit’s decision. “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision and ours to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things” (JESUS PLUS SOMETHING) (Acts 15:28 Holman)
This sect of Pharisees’ doctrine did not die as shown by:
1. “You see, brother, [Paul] how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20) (I don’t believe these elders were complaining; I believe they were bragging.)
2. “He [Peter] withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party.” (Galatians 2:12)
3. “Listen to me, you friends who think you have to obey the Jewish laws to be saved.” (Galatians 4:21)
4. Close to the end of his life, Paul wrote: “There are many who say all Christians must obey the Jewish laws. It must be stopped.” (Titus 1:10, 11)
This sect started baptizing babies for salvation sixty-two years before they were named Catholic in 313 AD. The ‘Moderates’ got the hated name “Anabaptist” because they withdrew fellowship when ‘Conservatives’ started dunking babies.
I believe this group followed Paul and Peter’s interpretation of the Scriptures of Jesus and never united with Catholics, but were persecuted through the ages with different names until they were named Baptists.
Persecution did not stop, and persecution today is even from out leaders as they removed over one hundred missioners and anyone they had control over that would not sign their creed that claims to be “our doctrinal guideline.”
Jim Richards, Executive Director of the new convention of Texas and now Vice-president of the SBC, echoes the thinking of Patterson and Pressler when he said, “Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new Convention. Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of Southern Baptists of Texas, we say, we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.” (Baptist Standard 11-18-98)
It seems Richards is giving credit to the Holy Spirit for his contrasting just as the letter said it was the Holy Sprit’s decision to put Jewish laws on Christian Gentiles.
Who says history doesn’t repeat itself? With their mandatory creed and their ‘Top Down Rule’, the SBC is becoming Catholic faster than original Catholics. It won’t be long before the SBC will be telling them, “Make room for us; the big dog’s moving in.”
To Rex Ray,
Thank you for helping me on my journey as I try to make some sense of what has happened to the church of some of my ancestors.
I have tried to listen and to understand.
OUTSIDER
Outsider:
Thanks for the response.
I do not critize the CBF for its size. Size is not the important thing.
The reason that I would not be part of the CBF is the lack of theological commitment. I, too, encourage you to visit their website. See the theological schools they support, and then read up on information about those schools. Those schools are not into orthodox conservatism (John Fariss' good term) at all.
So, my problem with the CBF is its absence of theological conviction as its founding premise. CBF does and would include in its midst those who deny central doctrines of the faith. We are not talking about diversity on "tertiary" doctrines (to use Wade's term).
The other things that I noted about CBF were noted because I think there is a lot of ambivalence within many people in CBF. Most of the people in that movement (the ones I have met) are very institutuional in nature. Conservatives had left the SBC in different waves in the 20th century. Moderate movements are not that independent. It must be a personality thing. I sense that there is a belief in the CBF that they should not get after it and really form a permanent presence because they think that they can somehow recapture the old insitutions they loved.
At any rate, the Presslers are not fundamentalists, so you are right. It is hard to see how they would have all that education and become fundamentalists because they are not fundamentalists. I would call them orthodox conservatives. One aspect of fundamentalists is the insistence on the premilennial return of Christ. The SBC does not take a position on this at all. So, the SBC is not a historically fundamentalist denomination. The moderates used that term as a slur even though it is not accurate.
One thing I have always tried to do is call people what they would like to be called. I use the term moderate and conservative, because those are the terms both sides preferred to be called.
"Hostile takeover" is also a term that does not rightfully describe what happened in the SBC. People in the SBC simply exercised their franchise. It would be just as wrong to say that if Obama wins in November that there was a hostile takeover of the Presidency by the Left in this country.
People like John Farris know that the CBF tolerates severe doctrinal error, and that there are major factions in the CBF that push things like the homosexual agenda. As an orthodox conservative, I know (even though I don't know him personally)that he would not want the SBC seminaries to have faculty that hold a low view of the inspiration of Scripture, deny the diety of Christ, and the orthodox view of his coming, death, burial and resurrection. I suspect that he would not want that. But the CBF does tolerate that, and supports that in supporting the seminaries that it supports.
So, anyway, I think that as we move forward, the best thing we could do is talk about the merits of things and specifics. Clarity is very helpful.
Labels are not.
I hope you have a great day.
Louis
Rob:
Thanks for your response.
You said that the elder read the Shack, but that he dismissed it as fiction.
So, he has not bought into the abberant theology that may be contained in the book.
But you are upset because Lifeway sells the book. I understand that.
What I have not understood is whether this elder made the decision to put the book in the stores or whether he could stop it. It would make some sense for you to be upset about that if it were true (not that I would agree), but there would be a logical connection.
But you have not made that connection so far.
Did this elder make the decision to put the book in the stores, or did he have the power to remove it?
If he did not put the book in the stores, and he does not have the power to remove it, he is just an employee that does not have any influence on Lifeway's policy, and it is fundamentally unfair for you to blame him for anything.
I suspect that the elder had noting to do with either putting the book in the stores or that he has the power to remove it. So, there is really no need for you to reply.
But given that, you have not presented any basis upon which this elder should be disciplined by the church.
If you continue to feel strongly about this elder, after reflecting on our discussion, I suggest that you take it to the elders of your church and discuss it.
If you now realize that your belief that the elder should be disciplined was perhaps hasty, then you probably also realize that your complaint is with the trustee board. And I suggest sincerely to you that you write the trustee board, just as an individual baptist, and tell them your concern.
Good luck to you.
Louis
Dear Outsider,
Thanks for reading what I said. I cannot answer your question either simply or authoritatively, but I will be glad to give you my perspective.
I think the fundamentalists now leading the SBC, as well what we often refer to as the "foot soldiers" of the movement, had/have mixed motives. Although I became a Christian and a Southern Baptist only about 1979, it seems that prior to that, these folks definitely had little to no voice in denominational life. Some suggest there was a "moderate" (what you would probably regard as orthodox, or close to it) "good old boys club" who ran things, and were closed to allowing anyone else have a stake in the control. I have no personal experience to either affirm or deny that. Others say the problem was a conservative to moderate group in control of the denominational machinery, but that this group was tolerant of liberals with low views of Scripture and the historic docterines of the faith who were teaching in the seminaries. This group, according to the story, was likewise closed to anyone intolerant of these "liberals in the seminaries," meaning those without power in the SBC would remain without power. Either way, I think one element in the "Conservative resurgance" (as they called themselves) or the "takeover" (as their opponents call them) thus became a drive for control, sociologically.
By the way, I do have some experience with the charge of "liberals in the seminaries," as I went to what was regarded as the most liberal SBC seminary at the time. Most of the professors there were more moderate than fundamentalist or even conservative, but none (who I experienced anyway) were out to ridicule any student's faith, much less "wreck" it, and frankly I found none with a "low" view of Scripture or who denied its inspiration as that has been historically understood, though not necessarily as the fundamentalists defined it. They regarded their calling as to present the facts of scholarship and give the student the tools and wherewithall to make his/her own evaluations and construct a theology which would be their own. That leads, I think, into the second element, because that philosophy of education is not palatable to all--especially considering all the streams (and traditions) of Baptists who became the SBC--groups represented by names like the Charleston tradition, the Sandy Creek tradition, etc., Calvinists and Arminians, some independant Baptists and others influenced by the Primitive and Landmark Baptist movements, and then the Fundamentalist Movement of the early 1900s. For them and those whom they influenced, it became an honest theological issue of rooting out liberalism, similar to the issues the denomination faced in the 1920s with the "Modernist Controversy."
Somewhere along the line, and proibably because of the polarization (both in the SBC and our country as a whole), there came to be a close identification with the social conservatism represented by the Republican Party in recent years, and the two came (and are) very, very close, to the point that each largely sees the other as its natural counterpart. I don't know which adopted which's tactics and methods, but they seem too close to be accidental correlations to me. So yes, I do believe there is a political agenda among some in SBC leadership today, although I don't want to think that it is universal among the same "group."
Wade,
I keep watching and hoping. Something about Christ and hope. . . .
Louis,
As I said earlier, I respect your opinions. I do, however, believe you have an exagerated view of the number and degree of "liberals" in the CBF. A lot of people mix up the CBF with the Alliance of Baptists, which is a truely liberal group by anyone's yardstick. Is it possible you have done so? Then again, maybe this is just something we will have to agree to disagree on.
John
"The husband is head of the home. I can vouch for that."
Can you please cite the passage that says the husband is head of the 'home'. Thanks.
" That does not men that God has to through the man to woman rather it is a special intercessor role that the husband plays in the family. This is not about lordship it is about shepherding. The same goes for pastor being male, there is intercessory role here not supremacy of authority. Good grief can we get some balance on this issue."
Who shepherds the man?
Lydia
John,
If I may respond to something you just wrote: "Somewhere along the line...there came to be a close identification with the social conservatism represented by the Republican Party in recent years, and the two came (and are) very, very close, to the point that each largely sees the other as its natural counterpart."
This bit of conventional commentary, spurred on largely by mainstream media know-it-alls has been seriously challenged and, for the most part, debunked, by recent studies by reputable social scientists.
The voting power-brokerage of the so-called "religious right"--presumably of which you assume the SBs you mention above have become a part--turns out to be one of those nice little cultural "myths" we tend to create when we don't particularly care for a certain view.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
Your last response to John was classic spin because you do not care for a particular point of view.
Any group that would ally itself with a person who believes that homosexuality is compatible with ministry is a group that has HUGE theological flaws. The CBF lines up along side professors from Mercer and Wake Forrest. I rest my case.
I mean, I have little respect for the denominational bigwigs in the SBC but I would, for the most part, rank them right up there with Barney Fife.
It is doubtful that anyone will read this. However this could certainly make for a great final comment. And it is not even from me but from a staunch Southern Baptist from days gone by. Kudos to anyone who knows from whom it originates:
The modern cry, "Less creed and more liberty," is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jelly fish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. …It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine.
Any guesses?
John:
You make some excellent points. Not everyone in the CBF is the same. I think that I made that point as well, or at least I tried to.
And I would not question your feelings or experience at all. But it appears that many people who attended SBC seminaries had a different experience.
I met one such gentleman last summer. Frank Stagg was at New Orleans when this man obtained his Ph.D. Stagg tried to de-rail this man's Ph.D. His dissertation was on the Holy Spirit in Isaiah. According to this man, Dr. Stagg did not believe in the Trinity, and he certainly did not see the Holy Spirit in Isaiah.
As you know, Stagg went on to Southern and taught there for many years.
That is but one example. I have friends in the seminaries who could give others.
I recently heard a talk where Ralph Elliott was the speaker. He seemed like a very nice man, but it was clear that theologically he is nowhere near the SBC BFM. He admitted that when he was at Southern and then Midwestern that several on the faculty were consciously aware that they did not believe as most Baptists in the pews, and that they did their best to conceal their views from common Baptists, but only expressed them in the seminary setting where they thought they would be safe.
I think that Joe makes a good point, too. I, too, can in no way reconcile a position in favor of homosexuality. It is completely contrary to 2000 years of Christian teaching and Judaism before that. Those Baptists in the CBF and the Alliance of Baptists who advocate that, to a man and woman, I have found, usually have a much lower view of scripture and problems with major doctrines as well.
The lines between the CBF and the Alliance of Baptists are not all that clear. There is a lot of cross pollination. Though let me add that does not mean that all or even most of the CBF people agree with the Alliance of Baptists.
I have to be careful of what I say here because I am trying not to reveal names etc. I am good friends with someone who is a leader of an agency in what we might call the affiliate world of the CBF.
He is a nice person. We have a friendship that revolves around things that are non-religious in nature. We share a common hobby.
We talk about religion from time to time, but when we do, it is clear that we come from opposite planets. He is more in line with the those in our group who teach at a nearby university or the people in our group that are of the Jewish faith. He is a universalist on salvation. He once declared that those two missionary women who were held in Afghanistan (can't remember their names) were doing an unethical act going to that country and evangelizing etc.
His church is an old Baptist Church in town. They recently hired a man from an Alliance of Baptists affiliated church to be the new pastor.
I would submit that is impossible for a person such as I to run seminaries and a missions enterprise with these type people. They are nice. I like them. But coming to an agreement on the principles and goals of theological education or on a missions enterprise with them would not be possible.
Since the CBF has no doctrinal standards, they can work with these people. That's fine for them. But I do not want this group imported back into the SBC. We will have constant war as far as the eye can see.
I am glad that the CBF was started so that these people have some group to belong to. I only hope that the CBF will continue to develop their vision and make it clear for those who agree with them. I wish them no ill will. I just don't want to run a seminary or a mission board with them.
I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I believe in the Christian doctrinal essentials. And, most importantly, I believe that any denominational employee, teacher, professor etc. should agree on these things, as well.
I will readily agree that there are those in the SBC that I disagree strongly with - but over points that are not Christian essentials. I also agree that there are those in the SBC that aren't good leaders, or that they say and do silly things.
But none of that is enough to motivate me to join with a group that has no doctrinal confession.
Louis
"That does not men that God has to through the man to woman rather it is a special intercessor role that the husband plays in the family. This is not about lordship it is about shepherding. The same goes for pastor being male, there is intercessory role here not supremacy of authority."
Can someone enlighten me with some Scripture as to where it says that a husband or a pastor has a special intercessory role?
What kind of intercession? A husband is called to both provide for and to also lovingly care for his wife as he would his own flesh (Paul's description of what it looks like to love as Christ did by laying down his life). All believers are called to pray for one another and to submit to one another in love. Pastors and elders appropriate resources to the needy and care for the practical needs of those in the congregation (such as feeding with the Word of God).
Intercession describes pleading someone else's case or to mediate between to parties. We all do this in prayer as believers.
When I hear the word "intercession" and how it is applied to "roles," I cannot help but wonder if this is also arguing some kind of spiritual intercession that is not a sufficient intercession that supercedes Christ's work on the Cross as sufficient for our salvation, but it implies that such "special intercession" argues that it is an essential part that is necessary for sanctification. The insertion of a human intercessor into a believer's recourse to go directly to the Throne of Grace is Romanist.
So I am uncomfortable with the language, and I would like to know what exactly and precisely "special intercession" entails and looks like, also supported by Scripture. It may be that I would agree with you on the underlying meaning that the term was meant to describe, but as it stands, I am concerned about what that really means.
Can anyone expound on what people mean when they use this phrase? I think we'd all agree that this "special intercession" is not a sufficient need, but I'm concerned that many argue that this "role" is an essential need -- maybe not for salvation -- but for optimal sanctification and the spiritual growth of the individual believer. And I fear that this argues on some subtle levels that works affect righteousness, not only of ourselves but on behalf of others. And it is my belief that this is a process that is internal, unaffected by works, and is 100% the working of the Holy Spirit within the heart and spirit of the believer.
If this is only to care for and provide for those under one's care and for those within one's realm of responsibility, why use the word "intercession"? Otherwise, I'm concerned that we all might eventually go the way of Francis Beckwith.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-beckwith_08tex.ART.State.Edition1.42a7cf3.html
This is a quote from B.H. Carroll, founder of SBTS, if I'm not mistaken.
The modern cry, "Less creed and more liberty," is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jelly fish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. …It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine.
I think the issue of our day is not that we should condemn creed that validate and confirm our fatih. I think that we should test all things, find our creeds and let them guide our hearts. But, it seems to me that the issue of our day is not about the creeds themselves but about our discernment regarding where those creeds really come from. Our creeds had best be everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God and not that which good men have decided. Not all that glitters today is truly gold.
Our problems are not whether we are creedal or not, our issues as a church concern discernment, Biblical literacy and which wisdom we will follow above all else -- God's or that of those we perceive to be God's infallible mouthpiece.
Louis,
Thanks for your input. It seems to me that there is one presuppositional issue between us--maybe others later on, but let's look at the foundation first.
From my perspective, the SBC was founded as a church-first, bottom-up organization. The SBC is there for the purpose of missions/evangelism, and for doing that cooperatively, in a way that individual churches could not. Consequently, the place for theological paraments was at the individual church level. Neither the 1925 nor the 1963 BF&M's changed that because it was still at the local church and Association levels that "enforcement" happened, if and when a particular church was to far outside these consensus boundaries. That is what the SBC was for most of its existance, how I think it still should be, and it is how the CBF is organized.
Your perspective--and please corect me if I am wrong--seems to be a denomination-first, top-down view. I am not saying that you think the churches are there to serve the SBC, but rather that the SBC sets the boundaries within a hierachial system, making churches in effect "franchises" of the SBC. Therefore the SBC as a denomination has the responsibility to establish theological paramenters which local churches must then fall into line with, or loose their "franchise." This would seem to me very consistent with the "Federal headship" model of Jesus Christ and the Trinity, and the subservience model for male headship in the home and church, and for some (but not all), in the nation as well. I do not claim to understand which came first, these models as applied theologically to the Trinity, home, and church, or pragmatically to churches within the SBC.
How do you see it?
John
ml,
I don't know who wrote it but "staunch Southern Baptist" leads me to wonder why he wasn't refered to as a "staunch Christian".
I don't know what else he wrote and to judge him by this one comment is prolly a little unfair. But one does wonder if in his cry for doctrine at the expense of liberty, he doesn't commit the same sin he obviously opposes just in the reverse.
How would this staunch Baptist interpret Galatians 5 for us?
I know when I read it, it seems we are submitting to the yoke of slavery again. Slavery to doctrine, much of it the doctrine of man.
We still appear to have the leaven corrupting the whole lump. Maybe we shold be telling these folks we are free from the law. Moses law and the law of man made doctrine/religion/traditions of men as well.
Maybe we need to use our freedom not as an opportunity of the flesh but to walk in the Spirit and love one another.
It would seem these days we are seeing much more evidence of walking in the flesh in the SBC than we are the other way around.
Wearing the yoke of man's doctrine isn't going to profit the church any more than wearing law of Moses did Jerusalem.
Salvation is through Christ alone. If ones doctrine enslaves you to man rather than pointing one to Christ then it is in fact...a different "gospel" (Gal 1:8).
Maybe it is time to cast out the slave woman and her children (Gal 4:30). Start acting like the sons we are and not submitting to the yoke of slavery these "staunch Baptists" would have us submit to.
Before you start slinging rocks, please read Galatians and see if you can't see the similarity between the circumcision then and the SBC taskmasters today. If Paul were here today, would he be preaching the same message? I think so.
Great point Cindy, about Creeds.
Another danger, that is just as bad and sinful, is doctrine or creeds without holiness or love.
Ezekiel, staunch means he was a founder and 1st president of SWBTS. Nothing more was meant. Your appraisal is rather simplistic and ignores the fact that you have done exactly what you are reviling against--that is, made your interpretive application synonymous with God's word. Curiously, I am not sure you understand Christian liberty as the freedom to live the way God created us to live as opposed to unrestrained freedom to choose whatever one desires. Hence liberty ought to push us toward right doctrine displayed in proper behavior—love as the sum of the law.
Cindy--ditto. You say: Our creeds had best be everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God and not that which good men have decided. Not all that glitters today is truly gold.
Followed by: Our problems are not whether we are creedal or not, our issues as a church concern discernment, Biblical literacy and which wisdom we will follow above all else -- God's or that of those we perceive to be God's infallible mouthpiece.
You are by extension asking us to an impossible either/or dichotomy where it is either the mouthpieces or your preferred interpretation as the correct direction to take.
lindo--Your scenario is a false possibility. You cannot have doctrine without humility and love. Paul warned Timothy to watch his doctrine and his life closely. They go hand in hand. See comments to Ezekiel above.
It is impossible to have an interpretation-less reading of God's word. This is Wade's whole point. Doctrinal/Interpretive humility without castigation is essential. You cannot say I have no creed except the Bible. Your creed then is your own arrived at reading/interpretation of the Bible. You guys are doing exactly what you claim the "evil ones" have done.
James Boyce said: God in His mercy preserve the instructors from the crime of teaching a single error, however unimportant, and grant unto all our Boards the grace necessary for faithfulness to the trusts devolved upon them, that false doctrine, however trifling, may receive no countenance.
We need to understand that when we decry doctrine we are basically invalidating all our own interpretations for doctrine includes every interpretation we arrive at whether seemingly inconsequential or essential. And when we sharply criticize another’s interpretation we are striking a blow to their doctrine by calling it false.
Tom,
First, "my last response" to John was my *only* response to *only* one, tiny portion of what John said. And he's said alot. How you could so confidently conclude my words were "classic spin" based upon such meager evidence is fantastic but predictable, given the track record of the comments to which you paste my name.
Second, to deny evidence when one does not even know what the evidence is or even worse, to not even inquire about it in order to personally investigate, is, from my point of view anyway, classic, self-satisfied ignorance, a type of prejudicial delusion whereby one appeals to a fictional wisdom without the least little bit of factual inconvenience to get in the way. A sweet but foolish adventure, I'd say.
With that, I am...
Peter
ml,
"Your appraisal is rather simplistic and ignores the fact that you have done exactly what you are reviling against--that is, made your interpretive application synonymous with God's word."
Well ml, I don't really know how I did this. I think it was pretty clear that what I suggested was that you read it and see if the shoe fits. Apparently, judging by your response, it was a better fit than you are willing to admit.
" Curiously, I am not sure you understand Christian liberty as the freedom to live the way God created us to live as opposed to unrestrained freedom to choose whatever one desires."
This should be pretty clear as well considering my earlier comment. Were you to actually read Galatians before commenting, you might recognize the following.
"Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
That after all, was the basis for my comment...
"Maybe we need to use our freedom not as an opportunity of the flesh but to walk in the Spirit and love one another."
"Hence liberty ought to push us toward right doctrine displayed in proper behavior—love as the sum of the law."
Can right doctrine be characterized in any other way than
Mat 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
"James Boyce said: God in His mercy preserve the instructors from the crime of teaching a single error, however unimportant, and grant unto all our Boards the grace necessary for faithfulness to the trusts devolved upon them, that false doctrine, however trifling, may receive no countenance."
The way I read your quote here is that false doctrine should receive no acceptance or...
Definition of countenance...
"A look or expression indicative of encouragement or of moral support.
Support or approval.
Obsolete Bearing; demeanor"
Starting from there, when you have a board determined to force support or approval of false doctrine (insisting on re baptizing a christian for missionary service) or (name your false doctrine here) then what do we do? Ignore them? That is what Boyce says..
But these days...support or approval is demanded...by that board. Got any biblical justification for that? What does Boyce say about boards demanding approval?
The fact is that "your doctrine" or "my doctrine" is going to get us exactly where Israel's doctrine got them. IF it doesn't point to Christ. And there is a lot of it today that doesn't. A lot of it points to and exhalts man rather than Christ.
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Not all doctrine is good...
Dear Peter,
I said nothing about "power brokerage" in my assertation that there is social conservatism shared by many in the SBC and the Republican Party. You have made a leap from what I said (quoted in youer first paragraph) to what you suggest that I said, or meant, or the consequences thereof, in your third paragraph.
If you are suggesting that there is no shared social conservatism between the GOP and the SBC (by which I mean the people, not an institution)--oh please, then why I did vote for George W. Bush twice and his father twice, despite the fact that I am still registered as a Democrat (Southern traditions die hard)? And if you would, please give me some give me some cites for the "recent studies by reputable social scientists" you mention. I'd really like to, read them.
John Fariss
“Less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jelly fish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy…it is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine.”
I don’t know who said it nor do I care, but they’re wrong. LIBERTY is FREEDOM. Christ said, “You shall know the truth, and truth will set you FREE.”
Christians are priests to be controlled by the Holy Spirit, and not by a bunch of rules and creeds made by men who try to replace Him.
Paul wrote: “Christians…who came to spy on us and see what freedom we enjoyed in Christ Jesus, as to whether we obeyed the Jewish laws or not. They tried to get us all tied up in their rules.” (Galatians 2:4) Does this sound familiar today?
Jesus warned, “…teaching as doctrines the commands of men.” (Matthew 15:9)
Baptists have always had confessions but their only creed was the Bible. Understand what a creed is. It’s a confession that carries authority that it must be obeyed or it’s the highway for you. The BFM 2000 has been made into a creed that makes it higher than the Bible since the BFM claims to be the GUIDELINE for DOCTRINE.
Oh, if egos had weight, Patterson and his small hand-picked committee that wrote this creed in secret would require wheelbarrows.
Let’s review the facts:
1. Keith Parks was President of the Foreign Mission Board for twelve years until the ‘takeover’ took place.
2. He believed the glue that held Baptist together was MISSIONS, but the new people said it was DOCTRINE. Jerry Falwell was asked why he changed to join the SBC. He replied, “I didn’t change; they came around to my way of thinking.”
3. Parks helped organize the CBF, and it’s criticized for NOT having doctrine. HA! Do you think Parks didn’t have doctrine when he was leading the Foreign Mission Board, or is it that he just doesn’t believe the ‘takeover’ doctrine? That’s like, ‘If you don’t believe the Bible like we do, you don’t believe the Bible.’
4. The answer to why the CBF is hated so is: THEY’RE GETTING MONEY THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO US!
Ezekiel,
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
I have frequently seen the term "Conservative Orthodox Christian". I believe that you can be VERY Orthodox in your Christian faith; and yet not have to bear the label of "Conservative". In religion, one CAN be Orthodox but not, necessarily Conservative. As an American, I can be very Orthodox in my Christianity and still be a Progressive politically, especially in the area of providing socialized medical and dental care for all children within our nation's borders.
Rex Ray:
I think what is so sad about the SBC power brokers is, especially the two PP's, it was all about power and the money. I agree they hate the CBF because some of the money that would have gone to the SBC instead went to the CBF. To ruin a great denomination over power and money is shameful.
ml, you wrote:
You are by extension asking us to an impossible either/or dichotomy where it is either the mouthpieces or your preferred interpretation as the correct direction to take.
I'm only drawing a dichotomy if those who are in leadership are NOT consistent with the Word of God, and I don't think that is ever a false dichotomy. If they are right on the Bible's mark with whatever creed has been formulated, then there is no dichotomy. We need to use Scripture to formulate and evaluate creeds, not use creeds to interpret Scripture. If we follow a solid hermeneutic and stick only to that which is clear and certain in Scripture to formulate our creeds, we do not have any issues or dichotomies at all. If we are adding to the Word what is not essential, writing interpretive creeds to force our pet doctrines of the non-essential, then we have a dichotomy.
We are always faced with a choice of whom we will serve. When those who speak for groups of Christians, whether it is the head of a seminary or a Sunday School teacher, when they deviate from sound, clear, essential doctrine, if we are Biblically literate enough and wise enough to discern the deviation, then we are faced with a choice. That is never a false dichotomy.
Late in your same post you wrote:
We need to understand that when we decry doctrine we are basically invalidating all our own interpretations for doctrine includes every interpretation we arrive at whether seemingly inconsequential or essential. And when we sharply criticize another’s interpretation we are striking a blow to their doctrine by calling it false.
I could easily claim that you're arguing a false dichotomy, seemingly stating that no doctrine can be denounced at the risk of "invalidating ALL of our own interpretations." That is all or nothing. I'm not exactly sure what you're advocating, but if it is that all doctrine should be considered to some extent and not sharply criticized, that's just wrong.
Everybody, every believer, should test all doctrine and try the spirits, bringing all doctrine under the authority of the Word, discerning the truth about it. If that doctrine is false, it MUST be sharply criticized and called exactly what it is. We should invite this criticism so that Body keeps us faithful, like the Bereans did.
Paul set an example for us to sharply criticize doctrine that did not measure up to the Word. Or was that reserved for Paul in his day and today's equivalent of our bishops, elders and leaders? It's out of the hands of the common believer? We need to just accept what we are told is wise, even if the Spirit's witness and the Word convict us otherwise?
Either I've completely misunderstood what you've said here, or you are arguing something to the affect of the appeal to authority -- something in stark contrast to the priesthood of believers. Even Moses said that we didn't need anyone to go up into heaven and bring us the Word. That it was nigh us, even in our mouths. How much more true is that since the veil in the temple was rent?
I'm definitely not arguing for believers to rebel against their authorities, but I am advocating what the New Testament argued -- that every individual believer both test doctrine and submit to the Body. Many doctrines fail both tests. If they didn't, Paul would not have written so many epistles.
Post a Comment